Full text of "Appeal to the American churches : with a plan for Catholic union"

See other formats

§rom flic fetfirarg of
(professor ^amucf (ttttffer
in (ntcmorg of

3u£)<je J=&amuef (ttttffer Q0reefttnrtbge
(presented 6b

^amuef (ttttffer QSrecfttnrtbge feong
fo flic £tfirarg of

(prtrtcefon 2#eofogtcaf ^emtitarg

BX 8 .S3 7

Schmucker

1 799-lS73
rican

V '

*<> . ’ i

« •

' ■ * - 4

*. •■ :>• \ - .

-/ ..

V *

t, • , . '

, - >;:-T-

*. .A i £

APPEAL

TO THE

AMERICAN CHURCHES,

WITH A PLAN FOR

CATHOLIC UNION.

BY S. S. SCHMUCKER, D. D.

Professor of Didactic and Polemic Theology in the Theol. Sem. of Gen. Synod
of the Lutheran Church, Gettysburg, Pa .

NEW YORK:
GOULD & NEWMAN:
,1 8 3 8.

PREFACE.

The following Appeal is affectionately addressed to the
American churches of every denomination, in the conviction,
that the subject of which it treats, is of incalculable importance
to the conversion of the world ; and in the hope, that the plan
of union proposed, is accordant with the spirit of the divine
Master. On the American churches, so happily exempt from
all entrammeling alliance with civil government, God seems
specially to have devolved the duty to review the history of his
visible kingdom, and, instructed by the lessons of former ages,
to adopt an organization which will arrest the intestine strife of
Christian brethren, and unite all their energies in effective efforts
to extend the triumphs of the cross to every nation upon earth ;
an organization, which, whilst it will restore the church to the
substantial unity of the apostolic age , will also preserve that
unity throughout the whole extent of her predicted triumphs
over the heathen world.

The writer feels it alike due to himself, to his subject, and to
those of whom he asks a hearing, to state that the sentiments of
the following appeal were not hastily adopted, but are the de¬
liberate result of a conscientious study of the subject, first urg¬
ed on him by providential circumstances about twenty years
ago, and frequently since pursued by extensive investigations
into the organization and experience of the church in the differ¬
ent ages of her history. In presenting these results, he sought
the utmost brevity ; and yet, as the popular reader was also
contemplated, some observations and statements were necessa¬
rily introduced, which would be superfluous, were he writing
for the learned alone.

PREFACE.

He now commends these pages to the candid and indulgent
examination of “ those that love the Lord,” of every name.
He requests them to test the sentiments advanced, not by their
ecclesiastical standards, which are the work of uninspired though
good men, but by the law and the testimony, by the inspired
word of God. Let them solemnly inquire, whether the Pro¬
testant churches, organized and operating on the plan here pro¬
posed, would not approximate much nearer to the apostolic
church than they now do, whether they would not act much
more efficiently and harmoniously in advancing the triumphs of
the cross in the heathen and papal world, and whether we might
not even hope again to see the days, when surrounding observ¬
ers will exclaim, u See how these Christians love one another.”

If much is to be effected in this great enterprise, it must be
through the cooperation and influence of religious editors and
other prominent individuals in every denomination of the Chris¬
tian church, by the public expression of their opinions, and by
the discussion of the subject in ecclesiastical judicatories, in the¬
ological institutions, and by individual congregations. The wri¬
ter theiefore lequests editors of religious periodicals and papers
favorable to the object, whose dimensions admit of it, to transfer
to their columns, unaltered, the entire plan itself, in one or sev¬
eral articles, including also the Apostolic , Protestant Confes¬
sion, and the mode of operation. He also particularly com¬
mends this Appeal to the “ American Society for the promo¬
tion of Christian Union,” and all similar Associations that may
be formed in our land. And most of all would he commend it
to the blessing and disposal of that divine Saviour, from a desire
to advance whose glory, he trusts these pages proceeded.

S. S. SCHMUCKER.

Theo’l. be in. Grettyshurn-
March 2(5, 1838.

APPEAL, ETC.

CHAPTER I.

ITatEQ ayis, rriqrjaov amovg ev tm ovofxaxi crop, ovg dsdcoxug /not, IVa
ojtnv tv, xa&bjg fjfttlg. — Jesus.

Jug Kvqiog , [tla niang, IV flam urfxa. — Paul.

When the sincere and unsophisticated Christian contemplates
the image of the church as delineated both in its theory and
practice by the Saviour and his apostles, he is charmed by the
delightful spirit of unity and brotherly love by which it is char¬
acterized. When he hears the beloved disciple declare “ God
is love, and they that dwell in love dwell in God and again,
“ Beloved, let us love one another, for love is of God, and
every one that loveth is born of God, and knoweth God. He
that loveth not, knoweth not God ; for God is love and
again, “ Beloved, if God so loved us, we ought also to love one
another — If any man say I love God, and hateth his brother,
he is a liar ; for he that loveth not his brother whom he hath
seen, how can he love God whom he hath not seen ? And this
commandment have we from him, that he who loveth God, love
his brother also.” — When the Christian listens to such declara¬
tions as these, and numerous others of similar import ; when
forgetting things as they exist around him, he brings his whole
soul under the influence of this love to God and the brethren ;
he perceives the moral beauty of these sentiments, and finds
his heart vibrate in delightful unison with them. But when
he awakes from this fascinating dream and beholds the body
of Christ rent into different divisions, separately organized, pro¬
fessing different creeds, denouncing each other as in error, and
often times, hating and being hated ; his spirit is grieved within
him, and he asks how can these things be among brethren ? In
the sacred record he looks in vain for the sectarian parties which

Dr. Schmucker’’ s Appeal.

now constitute all that is seen of the church of the Redeemer ;
he finds nothing there of Lutherans, of Presbyterians, of Metho¬
dists, of Episcopalians, of Baptists. But he sees that when the
formation of such parties was attempted at Corinth, Paul
deemed it necessary to write them a long letter, and besought
them by the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, to have no divis¬
ions among them. The Christian is therefore constrained to
mourn over the desolations of Zion and to meet the solemn in¬
quiry, cannot a balm be found for the ulcerous divisions which
deface the body of Christ ?

Many such hearts there happily are at the present day,
which are relenting from the rigor of party organization and
sectarian asperity. The love of Christ, that sacred flame
which warms them, and bids them strive together for the con¬
version of a world, also melts down the walls of partition, which
might well enough keep Jews asunder from Gentiles, but was
never permitted to sever one Jew from another, and much less
ought now to separate a Christian from his brother. Many are
pondering these things in their hearts, and asking ought breth¬
ren to be thus estranged J ought Ephraim thus to envy Judah,
and Judah to vex Ephraim ? Their number too is multiplying.
Brotherly love and Christian liberality are on the whole progres¬
sive, and tender increasing facilities, — whilst they urge the im¬
perious obligation of this inquiry upon every enlightened and
sanctified intellect. Happily many of the ablest heads and noblest
hearts in Christendom feel called to review the ground , which
the Protestant churches have been led to assume partly by op¬
tion, partly by inconsideration , and partly by the coercion of
circumstances. The successful prosecution of this inquiry de¬
mands the casting off of the prejudices of education and long
established habits, a recurrence to the elementary principles of
Christianity, of Christian doctrine, of Christian government, of
Christian duty : and the men, be they ministers or be they lay¬
men, who would regard this subject with indifference, or dis¬
miss it with a sneer, may well inquire whether the love of
Christ dwells in them. In this great concern not self-interest,
but the interest of the Redeemer’s kingdom, should be the mo¬
tive of our actions ; not victory, but truth should be our aim.

In this incipient stage of our discussion, we would premise a
few principles, or draw a few lines, by which the general course
of our investigation may be recognized and the results in some
degree be anticipated at which we shall arrive. It is admitted,

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

a) As one house cannot contain all the Christians in the world,
or in a particular country, there must necessarily be different
houses of worship.

b) As all Christians in a particular country cannot be incor¬
porated into one congregation to enjoy the ordinances of the
gospel, and to execute the duties of mutual edification, super¬
vision and discipline ; there must be different congregations , as
there were in the days of the apostles ; whatever may be the
proper principle for their construction, and the proper bond for
their union with each other.

c) We premise as a point conceded, that all the several de¬
nominations termed orthodox, which are but clusters of such
different congregations, are parts of the true visible church
of Christ ; because, in the conscientious judgment of all enlight¬
ened Christians, they hold the essentials of the gospel scheme of
faith and practice ; and secondly, because the Saviour himself
has acknowledged them as such by the seal of his grace and
Spirit. “ When James, Cephas and John perceived the grace
that was given to me,” says Paul, to the Galatians,* “ they gave
to me and Barnabas the right hand of fellowship.” And where
is the bigot, who at the present day, would claim his to be the
only true church, and thus repudiate all others as synagogues of
Satan ?

d) As these denominations hold dissentient views on some
nonessential points, it is demonstrable that all except one of
them must entertain some error. For of two contrary opinions
only one can be true. But the pretension that any one sect is
right in all things, and all others in error so far as they diverge
from this one, is highly improbable in itself, is forbidden by
Christian humility, by a knowledge of human nature, and by the
amount of talent, learning and piety in all the several churches.
Hence some error, in all probability, is an attribute of each
sect.

e) Finally, we premise that ministers and laymen, though
pious, are fallible, are sanctified but in part and liable to temp¬
tation from secular motives and feelings, even in things per¬
taining to the Redeemer’s kingdom. Hence they are all un¬
der obligation to review their course of thought and action,
and ought to be willing, for the glory of their God and Saviour,
to retrace and amend whatever may be found amiss. This ob-

* Chap. 2: 9.

Dr. Schmuclcer’s Appeal.

ligation devolves alike upon the writer and the reader. With a
deep impression of its importance, its claims are urged on your
present attention.

Under the presumption therefore that in these diversities of
opinion we are all more or less in error, let us inquire whether it is
right that the body of Christ should on account of these diver¬
sities be rent into so many different parts, under circumstances
creating different interests in each, and strongly tending to alien¬
ate their affections, and dissolve that bond of fraternal love, by
which they should be united, or whether it is the duty of Chris¬
tians to endeavor to heal these divisions, and promote unity
among all whom they profess to regard as disciples of Christ.
The will of our divine Master will become apparent to us
whilst we successively consider,

I. The Script aval injunctions.

II. The example of the apostles and primitive Christians.

III. The consequences which these divisions produce.

In the wealthy and corrupt city of Corinth, a Christian church
nad been planted by Paul, watered by the eloquent Apollos,
and blessed by him, from whom alone can come any genuine
increase. In this church, it seems, there appeared symptoms
of the spirit of sectarianism, that spirit, “ which now worketh”
not only u among the children of disobedience/’ who have a
name to live whilst they are dead but which often mars the en¬
joyment and tarnishes the graces of the members of Christ’s spirit¬
ual body. The Corinthian brethren had long been familiar with
the several sects of heathen philosophers and religionists and by a
natural transition were led to array themselves into parties accord¬
ing to some religious differences which arose among them. Some
said “ I am of Paul,” probably because he first laid the foundation
of the Corinthian church ;* others said “ I am of Apollos,” per¬
haps on account of his superior eloquence ; and others said u I
am of Cephas,” either because like Peter, they cherished Jew¬
ish predilections, or were converted by him elsewhere. Here
then was an attempt to introduce different sects or religious de¬
nominations into the church of Christ, ranged under different
leaders such as Paul, Apollos, Peter, Luther, Calvin, Zuingli
or Wesley; and what are the feelings of the noble-minded
Paul? Does he approve of such a course? Let us hear his
own words, my brethren, and pray that the spirit of our lacerated

* Chap. 3: 10. Acts 18: 11.

Dr. Schmiickei^s Appeal.

Master may enable us to understand them. “ I beseech you,
brethren, by the Lord Jesus Christ,” (by the hope you cherish
through him, by his suffering, by his blood), I beseech you,
“ that ye all speak the same thing, and that there be no schisms
(apo^ai a) or sects among you ; but that ye be joined together
in the same mind and in the same judgment. For it hath been
declared to me concerning you, my brethren, by them which
are of the house of Chloe, that there are contentions (tpideg)
among you : namely that every one of you saith,” either “ I am of
Paul” (he is my leader), “ or I am of Apollos, or I am of Peter,
or I am of Christ. Is Christ,” (i. e. the body of Christ) “ di¬
vided ? Was Paul” (or either of those whose names ye assume
and whom ye wish to place at the side of Christ as leaders or
heads of the church) “ crucified for you ? Or were ye baptized
into the name of Paul (or of Apollos, or of Peter, so that ye
were received into their church, and not into the church of
Christ ?) “ I thank God,” (since ye thus abuse the privi¬

lege of having been baptized) “ that I baptized none of you except
Crispus” (the ruler of the synagogue) “ and Gaius” (whose hos¬
pitality I enjoyed whilst at Corinth ;) so that ye cannot with
any semblance of truth allege, that I baptized you in my own
name and thus formed a peculiar sect of Christians.

Such is the powerful and decided testimony given by the in¬
spired apostle Paul, against the spirit of sectarianism. Ought
not every man who believes himself a Christian, to feel the force
of this rebuke and ask, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do to
heal thy wounded body ? The apostle does not even introduce
into his argument the points of diversity among them, on ac¬
count of which they were arraying themselves into different
parties. The simple facts that they were baptized into Christ,
and into Christ alone, i. e. were members of the church in good
standing, and that Christ must not be divided, are the only argu¬
ments which he deems requisite to prove the impropriety of their
divisions and of their assumption of different names. He would
have them Christians and nothing but Christians ; not Pauline
Christians, nor Apolline, nor Cephine, nor Lutheran, nor Cal vinis-
tic, nor Wesleyan Christians, not because he had any antipathy to
Apollos or Peter; but because any such divisions based on dif¬
ference of opinions or personal attachments naturally tended to
rend asunder the body of Christ. Let it be distinctly remem¬
bered then, that the argument of Paul for the unity of the Re¬
deemer’s visible church is twofold ; first, he maintains that this

8 Dr . Schmucker's Appeal.

unity and the impropriety of divisions on party-grounds are evi¬
dently presupposed by the fact, that all its members are baptized
into the name of Christ alone ; and secondly from the fact that all
'■ divisions based on difference, are equivalent to dividing the one
body of Christ. Nor does he here affix any limitations to these
principles, and no uninspired authority is competent to prescribe
any others than such as may indubitably flow from other inspired
declarations or from the obvious nature of Christianity itself.
The apostle Paul therefore distinctly forbids the cutting up of
those whom he would acknowledge as Christians at all, into dif¬
ferent parties or sects. And this he does even by anticipation,
for in all probability, these parties had not yet fully separated
from one another, nor renounced ecclesiastical inter-communion.
Yet there were in the apostolic age, as well as at present, men
who claimed to be Christians, but whom this great apostle
was unwilling to acknowledge as such, and commanded “ after
the first and second admonition, to reject.”*

In the passage, “A man that is a heretic ( algsiwov avftgw-
7iov ) after the first and second admonition reject,” the apostle
himself limits the application of the principles above urged on
the Corinthians, by showing that although he forbade the form¬
ation of sects or divisions among Christians on the ground of
difference, yet there were occasionally persons in the church,
who if incorrigible, deserved to be cast out of it altogether.
The crime which in the judgment of Paul merited this punish¬
ment, he designates by the term heretical {aigeTiyiovf which
in the English language distinctly refers to one who denies a
fundamental doctrine of Christianity. The original word also
sometimes seems to have this sense ; but more frequently it
signifies a schismatic, one who makes a division, or forms a sect.
In the former acceptation, the passage inculcates the salutary
duty, acknowledged and practised by all the orthodox churches
of the land, of excluding from their communion and from mem¬
bership, those who deny a fundamental doctrine of the gospel,
that is a doctrine unitedly believed by all the orthodox churches,
and regarded as essential by them. Some denominations would
exercise still greater rigor, and exclude from their communion
the believers of doctrines held by such sister churches, as they
professedly and sincerely regard as churches of Christ. But
Paul wholly repudiates those divisions grounded on diversity of

* Titus 3: 10.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

sentiment, which would render it possible for a brother Chris¬
tian, when ejected from one portion of the Saviour’s church to
find admission to another. At all events, the church in his day
was not thus divided, and those whose excommunication he en¬
joined, must in his judgment have forfeited all claim to the
Christian profession. The apostles’s rule, therefore, as limited
by himself, would be that we ought not to separate from our
brethren, for any error which we believe them to entertain, and
which does not in our most conscientious judgment deprive
them of all claim to the character of Christians.

The primitive import of the Greek word aigsoig (heresy) is -
selection , choice. Thus it is used by many ancient Greek wri¬
ters. The following passage of Aeschines Socrat. (Dial. II. 3,)
amounts, if not to a definition, yet to the most appropriate ex¬
emplification of this sense of the term : ei dt xlg aoc didotrj ai~
geoiv xovxoiv , noxegov uv (jqvXoio , In this sense we also meet
it in the Septuagint ; (Lev. 27 : 18 and 21,) as equivalent to
free will, voluntarily. It is also employed to designate a pe¬
culiar kind of discipline or mode of living , that has been vol¬
untarily assumed. But its more common signification* is schism ,
division , sect. Thus Dionys. Halic. (Ep. I. ad Ammaeum.
c. 7.) says of Aristotle : He was not the leader or head of a
school, nor did he form a sect of his own (ovxs oyolrig riyov^u-
vog, ovx ’ idiav mnoujucog aigeoiv.) It is used by classic writers
to designate the several philosophic sects, the Stoics, the Epi¬
cureans, the Peripatetics, etc. It occurs nine times in the New
Testament and in the majority of cases it is translated sect in
the common version. In the other cases it might with equal
propriety be rendered in the same way,j* as indeed it is by
many distinguished translators. In its primitive and most cur¬
rent signification, therefore, the word (aigeoig) conveys no re¬
proach. It is used to designate the sect of Pharisees, % the sect

* Rosenmiiller defines aigeaig thus : ‘'Aigsaewg vox, per se media
est. Ubi in rnalam partem sumitur significat idem quod o^/cqua ; sed
restringitur ad ea dissidea quae fiunt ex opinionum diversitate.

f 2 Pet. 2:1. 1 Cor. 11: 9.

| Acts 15:5: But there rose up certain of the sect (aigecng) of the
Pharisees, who believed saying, that it was needful to circumcise
them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. Acts 25: 6 :
The Jews knew me from the beginning if they would testify, that af¬
ter the most straitest sect {a'igeaig) of our religion, I lived a Pharisee.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

of Sadducees,* * * § and the sect of the Nazarenes or Christians.! In
all the passages where it is rendered sect, in the common ver¬
sion, it signifies a party of persons who have separated them¬
selves from others professedly pursuing the same end, over
whom they profess to have some advantages. Here we have
sects substantially corresponding to those of our days, sects based
✓ not on geographical lines, but on doctrinal diversities like our
own, and yet what does Paul say concerning such sects in the
church of Christ ? Using the very same word by which he
designated the sect of the Pharisees, (in an adjective form,) he
declares: Him that is a sectarian man (aigeiwov dvQQwnov}
an originator or supporter of sects in the Christian church, after
the first and second admonition, reject , exclude from your com¬
munion and intercourse, avoid. Here we have the apostle again
distinctly condemning the formation of sects in the Christian
church, using the very identical term by which the Pharisees
and Sadducees are designated in the New Testament and the
several sects of their philosophers by classic Greeks.

Again, in the third chapter of his first epistle to the Corin¬
thians,! Paul denounces such divisions in the Christian church
as “carnal.” “For, (says he) whereas there is among you
envying and strife and divisions , are ye not carnal, and walk
as men ? For while one saith I am of Paul, and another I am
of Apollos, are ye not carnal V9 How then can divisions es¬
sentially similar, among modern Christians, be pleasing in the
sight of God ? In his letter to the Galatians, $ this same apos¬
tle classes these heresies or divisions among “ the works of the
fleshy He beseeches the Romans, || to “ mark, (gxot ie7v) at¬
tentively to observe, or watch those, “ who cause divisions and
offences, contrary to the doctrine (or rather the instruction or
advice) which ye have learned : and avoid them.” But it
would be an endless work to present all the passages, in which
the sacred volume inculcates the unity of the church, and de¬
precates its disruption into sects. Let one other passage termi¬
nate this branch of our argument. To the same Corinthians,H

* Acts 5: 17 : Then the high priest rose up and all they that were

with him, which is the sect (cugscng) of the Sadducees.

f Acts 24: 5, 14. 28: 22. J v. 3: 4.

§ Gal. 5 : 20 : The works of the flesh are — wrath, strife, heresy, or
sects, divisions.

|| 16 : 17.

H 12:12.

Dr. Schmuckei'’ s Appeal.

he says : u For as the body is one, and hath many members,
and all the members of that one body, being many, are one
body ; so also is Christ. For by one Spirit are we all baptiz¬
ed into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether
we be bond or free ; and have been all made to drink into one
Spirit. For the body is not one member but many. — Now
they are many members, yet but one body — That there should
he no schism in the body ; but that the members should have
the same care one for another.”* It would seem then to be
irresistibly evident, that the unity of the church ought to be sa¬
credly preserved by all who love the Lord Jesus ; and without
stopping, at this stage of our investigation, to ascertain all the
precise features of this unity, which will hereafter appear; it is
evident that the union inculcated by the apostle, is such, as is
inconsistent with the divisions which he reprobates, and such
divisions substantially are those of the present day, which are
all based on some difference of doctrine, forms of government,
or mode of worship among acknowledged Christians.

But the obligation of Christians to preserve the unity of the
church , is evident from the example of the apostles , of the
apostolic and subsequent age.

It would be superfluous to affirm, that no one of the apostles,
or their fellow laborers established any sects in the Christian
church. The bare supposition of the contrary is absurd and
revolting to every mind acquainted with the inspired record.
Yet what ample ground was there for such a course, if it had
been regarded lawful ? There was difference of opinion among
the apostles, and difference among the first Christians : but
neither was regarded as a cause for schism or division in the
church. Paul differed from Peter and disapproved of his con¬
duct so much that (he says) “ at Antioch I withstood him to
the face, for he was to be blamed :”f yet neither of them
dreamed of forming a sect for the defence and propagation of
his distinctive views. Paul and Barnabas differed about their
arrangements for missionary operations, and when the conten¬
tion grew sharp, each took as fellow laborers those whom he
preferred, and thus prosecuted the work ; but it never entered
into their minds to form different sects in the church. In the
apostolic age there existed differences of opinion and practice
between the Jewish and Gentile converts, far greater than those

* See also Eph. 4 : 3—6. f Gal. 2: 11—14.

Dr. Schmuclcer’s Appeal.

which divide some of the religious denominations of our land,
(the former enjoining circumcision* and other ceremonial ob¬
servances) ;j* yet they did not divide the church into diffeient
sects under the guidance of the apostles. On the contrary
the apostle enjoined mutual forbearance. “ One man (says
Paul) esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth
every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own
mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord ;
and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not re¬
gard it — But why dost thou judge (condemn) thy brother ? or
why dost thou set at nought (despise) thy brother? for vve
shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.^ Nor did
any schism actually arise from these differences till the apostles
had gone to their rest, when in direct opposition to this advice,
the Nazaraeans, in the reign of Adrian, separated from the body
of Christians, who however strongly disapproved of their con¬
duct. It is certain too that during several hundred years, there
continued to be persons in the church , who exhibited a linger¬
ing attachment to the Mosaic ceremonial observances, yet they
were not excluded nor advised to form themselves into a sepa¬
rate sect. The observance of the Lord’s day or Christian Sab¬
bath was universal but some Christians during several cen-

# Acts 15 : 5.

f Gal. 4:10: Ye observe days and months and times and years.
I am afraid, etc.

| Romans 14 : 5 — 10.

§ On the subject of the primitive sanctification of the first day of
the week as the Christian Sabbath it may not be uninteresting to ad¬
duce the testimony of Justin Martyr, who was born three or four
years after the death of the apostle John, in his Apology for the Chris¬
tians, presented to Antoninus Pius, A. D. 150. He says : “ On the day
which is called Sunday, all whether dwelling in the towns, or in the
villages, hold meetings, and the memoirs ^Anofivi]yovsvyaTa) of the
apostles and the writings of the prophets are read as much as the
time will permit ; then the reader closing, the person presiding, in a
speech exhorts and excites to an imitation of those excellent exam¬
ples ; then we all rise and pour forth united prayers, and when we
close our prayers, as was before said, bread is brought forward, and
wine and water; and the presiding officer utters prayers and thanks¬
givings according to his ability (ocr^ dvvayig avicp) and the people re¬
spond by saying Amen. A distribution and participation of the things
blessed, takes place to each one present, and to those absent it is sent

Dr. SchmucJcer’s Appeal.

turies continued also to observe the Jewish Sabbath as a sacred
day. The time for the observance of Easter was another point
of difference and even of warm controversy ; yet excepting some
intolerant individuals neither party seriously thought of divid¬
ing the church or disowning their brethren on this ground.* *
Had these differences existed in our time, who can doubt not
only that separate sects would have grown out of them but that
their formation would be approved by Christians generally ?
Nay is not this question decided by facts ? Is there not a sect
of some extent in our land, the Seventh Day Baptists, who dif-

by the deacons. Those who are prosperous and willing, give what
they choose, each according to his own pleasure ; and what is collect¬
ed is deposited with the presiding officer, and he carefully relieves
the orphans and widows, and those who from sickness or other causes
are needy, and also those that are in prison, and the strangers that are
residing with us, and in short all that have need of help. We all com¬
monly hold our assemblies on Sunday, because it is the first day on
which God changed the darkness and matter and framed the world ; and
Jesus Christ our Saviour, on the same day, arose from the dead.” Mur¬
dock’s Mos. I. p. 164 — 5.

* The testimony of Eusebius on this point is very satisfactory.
He says (Book V. chap. 23,) “there was a considerable discussion rais¬
ed about this time in consequence of a difference of opinion respect¬
ing the observance of the festival (of the Saviour’s) passover.” _ After

narrating the history of this discussion and the efforts of Victor, bish¬
op of Rome, to break communion with those who differed from him,
Eusebius quotes an extract from a letter written by Irenaeus to Victor
to persuade him to peace. “And though (says Irenaeus to Victor)
they (the earlier bishops) themselves did not keep it, they were not
the less at peace with those from churches where it was kept, when¬
ever they came to them. — JVeither at any time did they cast off any,
merely for the sake of form. But those very presbyters before thee,
who did not observe it, sent the eucharist to those of churches who
did. And when the blessed Polycarp went to Rome, in the time of
Anicetus, and they had a little difference among themselves, about
other matters also, they were immediately reconciled, not disputing
much with one another on this head. For Anicetus could not per¬
suade Polycarp not to observe it; because he had always observed it
with John, the disciple of our Lord, and the rest of the apostles, with
whom he associated. — Which things being so, they communed together,
and in the church Anicetus yielded to Polycarp : they separated from
each other in peace, all the church being at peace, both those that ob¬
serve and those that did not observe, maintaining the peace.” Euseb,
Book V. chap. 24.

Dr . Schmucker’s Appeal.

fer from other baptists only in regard to the time of observing
the Christian Sabbath ; they believing that the seventh day con¬
tinues to be the proper one under the New Testament dispensa¬
tion, as it was under the Old ? But in the apostolic churches
it was different. There all who were regarded as Christians
and lived in the same place, also belonged to the same church,
and worshipped together, agreeing to differ in peace on minor
points, and remembering that no Christian has a right to judge,
that is to condemn his brother Christian on account of his con¬
scientious difference of opinion. Each one was to be fully per¬
suaded in his own mind, and prepare to stand with his brother
before the judgment seat of Christ. Neither was to sit in judg¬
ment on the other, Christ was to judge both ; and until his final
award their differences were to be borne in love.

Let it be borne in mind, then, that in the apostolic age, when
the church was governed by inspired servants of God, and for
some time after, there was not in the whole Christian world any
such thing as different sects of acknowledged Christians. All
who professed to be Christians, and resided in the same place,
belonged to the same church. And if, as was probably the
case in large cities, they met at different houses for worship,
they nevertheless all regarded each other as members of the
same church or congregation ; they all frequently communed
together, and the reason of different places for meeting, was
not diversity of opinions among them, but because private
houses in which they assembled, having had no churches till the
third century,* could not contain them all. Heretics there
were, who denied some essential doctrines of Christianity.
These were excluded from the church in which they had
resided, and were then disowned by all other Christian church¬
es. But different sects of Christians, acknowledging each other
as Christians, yet separated on the ground of diversity of opin¬
ions, such as the different denominations of Protestants are, had
no existence, and were utterly unknown in the apostolic age ;
nor was the great body of the church ever thus cut up, in her
purest day during the earlier centuries. We read of the church
at Corinth, the church at Ephesus, the church in Rome, the
church in Smyrna, the church in Thyatira, the church in Phil-

* The houses for Christian worship were erected during the reign
of Alexander Severus between A. D. 222 — 235: yet Vater supposes
them to have existed at the close of the 2d century.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

adelphia, the church in Jerusalem, the church at Philippi, and
in many other places ; but never of the Pauline church in Cor¬
inth, nor of the church that follows Apollos, nor of the church
of Gentile converts, nor of the church of Jewish converts, nor of
the church that retains the observance of the Jewish Sabbath, nor
ol the church that does not. In short Christians in those days
were called Christians and nothing but Christians ; and one
Christian church was distinguished from another only by the
name of the place in which it was located. This ought certain¬
ly to be a solemn fact to those, who have taken it for granted,
that sectarian divisions of the church are right, that they were
doing God service by their utmost efforts to perpetuate them,
by inscribing on the tender and infant mind the lineaments of
their denominational peculiarity. One thing does appear unde¬
niable. If the sectarian form of Christianity be its best mode
of development, the blessed Saviour himself — with reverence
be it spoken ! — the Saviour and his apostles failed to give it
their injunction ; on the contrary, enjoined and practised direct¬
ly the reverse ! ! The writer does not from these facts infer
the obligation of Christians immediately to renounce their pres¬
ent organizations and all merge into one church. Difficulties
now exist arising from honest diversity of views on church gov¬
ernment, which did not exist in the apostolic age, and which render
it impossible for persons thus differing to unite geographically ;
but the essence of Christian union may exist, and ought to be
promoted immediately, as will be seen in a subsequent stage of
this discussion. As to a union of all the churches of the land
in one compact ecclesiastical system of judicature, such a one
did not exist in the apostolic age, is undesirable, and dangerous.

But the importance of unity in the body of Christ, and the
duty of promoting it is further demonstrated by the baneful effects .
of sectarian divisions.

Sectarian divisions, divisions on the ground of difference , tend
to destroy that community of interest , and sympathy of feeling
which the Saviour and his apostles so urgently inculcate. How
fervently does our blessed Lord supplicate for the unity of all
his followers ! “ Neither pray I for these (the apostles) alone,

but for them also who shall believe on me through their word ;
that they may all be one, as thou Father art in me and I in
thee”* — that there may be among them that unity of counsel,

* John 17: 20, 21

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

of feeling, of purpose, of action which exists between the Father
and the Son. What can be more reasonable ? If all his dis¬
ciples, all who “ believe in him through the word,” are hereaf¬
ter to inhabit the same heaven, to surround the same throne of
God and the Lamb ; would not the principle of sectarian di¬
visions carry discord into those harmonious ranks, and mar their
heavenly hallelujahs and grate upon the ears of angels and the
Lamb ! No! sectarianism is an acknowledged and — alas that
it should be so — a cherished trait of the church on earth, which
will never, never be admitted into heaven. And who can
doubt that the nearer we can bring the church on earth to the
character of the church in heaven, the more pleasing will she
be to him that purchased her with his blood. Accordingly
Paul informs us : “ That there should be no schism in the body ;
but that the members should have the same care one for an¬
other;* and if one member suffer, all the members suffer with
it, or if one member be honored, all the members rejoice with
it!” But, gracious Lord ! is not directly the reverse of this but
too frequently witnessed ? Does not the great mass of the sev¬
eral religious denominations of our land, exhibit any thing else
than “ the same care,” for the other members of Christ’s body ?
If one denomination suffers, fails of success or meets with dis¬
grace in some unworthy members, do not surrounding denomi¬
nations rather at least tacitly and cheerfully acquiesce if not re¬
joice, hoping that thus more room will be made and facility
offered for their own enlargement ? We do not find that mem¬
bers of the same family thus cordially acquiesce or triumph in
each others’ misfortune or disgrace. If one brother is visited
by any calamity, if he falls a victim to intemperance and bears
about in his bloated face the ensign of his disgrace, do we
find his brothers and sisters rejoice in it ? Do they not rather
sympathize, feel hurt themselves, and mourn over his downfall ?
Thus ought it to be among all who deserve the name of Christ.
Thus would it be, if the community of interest in the Saviour’s
family had not been impaired by sectarian divisions which place
several distinct religious families on the same ground, with
separate pecuniary interests, with conflicting prejudices, with ri¬
val sectarian aims ! In the apostolic age and for centuries after
it, only one Christian church occupied the same field, and thus
J three fourths of the causes which originate contention among

* 1 Cor. 12:25

Dr. Schmuckers Appeal.

modern Christians were avoided. These separate interests,
will always create contention, rivalry and jealousies among fal¬
lible men, sanctified hut in part, as long as they are not re¬
moved or their influence in some way counteracted. And, as
they did not belong to the church constituted by the. Saviour
and his apostles, the solemn duty devolves on all Christians
to inquire, how can this evil be remedied ?

Again, sectarian divisions of the church impede the impar¬
tial study of the sacred volume by ministers and laymen. The
doctrines believed by what are termed the orthodox churches,
as well as their forms of government and worship, may be di¬
vided into two classes, those which are undisputed and held by
all in common, and those which are disputed by some of them,
and which distinguish the sects from each other. The sectari¬
an principle builds a wall of defence around the peculiar opin¬
ions of each sect. It enlists all Christians in defence of the pe¬
culiarities of their denomination, and creates powerful motives
of a self-interested and unholy character in vindication of these
peculiarities, rather than of the grand truths of Christianity,
which are essential to the salvation of all ; motives which
appeal to the pride of some, to the avarice of others, and to the
ambition of a third class. Each member is taught by the very
principles of his sinful nature to feel identified with the peculiar
interests of his sect. His vanity is flattered by the supposed
respectability of his sect, his ambition is at least tempted by the
prospect of extended influence or distinction in the ministry or
as a layman in the ecclesiastical councils of his extensive and re¬
spectable church, and his avarice is concerned in diminishing his
own expenses by the increasing numbers of his fellow-members,
or, if a minister, by the ample support which he may obtain.
We would not insinuate that all Christians are influenced by
these unamiable motives, nor that any true disciple ol the Sa¬
viour is mainly actuated by them. But we fear that the ma¬
jority of professors in the church, are more influenced by these
secular considerations, than they are themselves aware. Ac¬
cordingly, the peculiarities of sect acquire a factitious impor¬
tance, are often inculcated with as much assiduity as the great
and cardinal doctrines of the gospel. Endless and useless con¬
troversies about these points agitate the church, and disturb her
peace. These peculiarities are instilled into the tender minds
of children, and are often represented as involving the marrow
of salvation. Prejudices are raised in their behalf. The tenets

Dr. Schmuckers Appeal.

of other denominations are often kept out of view, or stated in a
manner but ill calculated for an impartial investigation of God’s
truth. The antipathies of the social circle are sometimes ar¬
rayed in opposition, and, may I say, sometimes in ridicule of
other denominations ; and even the gentler sex, sisters of her
of Bethany, who, sitting at the Master’s feet, imbibed the
streams of his love ; sisters of them, who, true to their affection,

“ Were last at the cross,

And earliest at the grave,”

have hated that Saviour in the person of his followers, because
they wore not the badge of their sect ! have forgotten that their
religion is love, — that charity, divine charity is the brightest or¬
nament of their nature ! Under such circumstances, doubts of
the sectarian peculiarities inculcated, would expose the ingenuous
youth who should avow them, to social inconveniences, to paren¬
tal disapprobation, and rarely does he enjoy ample oportunity
for impartial investigation, before adult age. The fact that al¬
most invariably, young persons adopt and prefer the peculiar
sectarian views of their parents, is a demonstrative proof that
their preference is not built on argument , that the mode of re¬
ligious education in the different churches is unfavorable to im¬
partial investigation. The simple circumstance of parental be¬
lief, is assuredly no satisfactory proof of the creed which we
adopt on account of it. For the same reason, we would have
been Mohammedans, if bom in Turkey, Papists in Italy, and
worshippers of the Grand Lama in Thibet. And ministers of
the gospel have still greater obstacles to surmount, as their dis¬
belief of the peculiarities of their sect tarnishes their reputation
with their associates, yea, not unfrequently excludes them from
their pastoral charge, and their families from daily bread ! Is
it not evident, then, that the state of the Christian church
amongst us is unfavorable to the impartial study of the volume
of divine truth ?

Lastly, the principle of sectarian divisions powerfully retards
the spiritual conquests of Christianity over the world. Who
that knows aught of the divine life, can doubt, that in propor¬
tion as he permits pride, envy, jealousy, hatred to arise in his
heart, the spirit of piety languishes, his graces decline and his
sense of the divine presence is impaired ? But sectarianism, by
which in this discussion we generally mean the principle of di¬
visions on the ground of difference, in nonessentials among those

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

who profess to regard each other as fellow Christians, sectarian¬
ism indubitably creates various conflicting interests, presents nu¬
merous occasions and temptations to envy, hatred, jealousy, slan¬
der, and creates an atmosphere around the Christian, in which
the flame of piety cannot burn with lustre, and not unfrequently
expires.

What observer of transpiring scenes can doubt, that the sec¬
tarian strife and animosity between the churches, deter many
sinners from making religion the subject of their chief concern
and from being converted to God ? The Saviour prayed : That
they all may be one, as thou Father art in me and I in thee ; that
they may also be one in us ; that the world may believe that
thou hast sent me.” Here then, the Saviour himself informs
us what influence unity among his followers was designed to
effect ; history tells that when surrounding heathen were con¬
strained to say “ see how these Christians love one another,”
the moral influence of their example was amazing : and who
can doubt that inverse causes produce inverse effects.

How often does not the principle of sect, exclude the bles¬
sed Saviour from our villages and sparsely populated sections of
country, in which united Christians might support the gos¬
pel ; but cut up into jealous and discordant sects, and hating
one another as though each believed a different Christ, all re¬
main destitute of the stated means of grace ! The occasional
visits of ministers of different sects serve to confirm each party
in its own predilections, and thus we often witness the melan¬
choly spectacle of the Saviour excluded from such places by
the dissensions of his professed friends, and sinners shut out
from the sanctuary of God because saints cannot agree whether
Paul or Apollos or Cephas shall minister unto them.

Nor is the principle of sect, less unfriendly to the spread of
the gospel in heathen lands. By often stationing on the same
ground at home, more men than are necessary, or can be sup¬
ported, laborers are improperly withdrawn from the destitute
portions of the field, which is “ the world conflicting inter¬
ests unavoidably arise among the ministers and churches thus
crowded together ; as all cannot long continue, a struggle for
existence is carried on, more or less openly, and with different
degrees of violence, until the failure of one or more drives them
from the field, and makes room for the others. Nor is this con¬
flict to be attributed so much to the want of piety in the parties,
as to that actual conflict of interests which unavoidably results

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

from the influence of sects. But certainly every true Christian
must deplore this state of things, and it is the writer’s deliberate
conviction, that one of the bitterest ingredients in the cup of
ministerial sorrow, in many portions of our land, is this unholy
and unhappy strife among brothers. In short it is a solemn and
mournful truth, that sectarianism, the principle of sect, in a
great measure changes the direction in which the energies of
the church are applied, transfers the seat of war from pagan
to Christian lands , from the territory of Christ’s enemies into
the very family of his friends ! In the beginning the church
of the Redeemer at peace at home, directed all her surplus en¬
ergies against the world around her and the world of Jews and
Gentiles in foreign lands. The war was waged not by one
portion of Christ’s family against another, but emphatically
and distinctly by the church against the world ; such was the
almighty force of the spiritual artillery wielded in this holy war,
that in about three hundred years the little band of fishermen
and tentmakers, fought their way to the utmost bounds of the
Roman empire, and the banner of king Jesus, which was first
unfurled in the valleys of Judea, was waving in triumph o’er
the palace of the Caesars. But who can deny, that a large por¬
tion of the energies of Christian sects is now expended in con¬
tending with each other, in building up walls of partition, in for¬
tifying and defending those peculiar views by which they are
kept asunder ? The war is no longer a foreign, it is an intes¬
tine one. How large a portion of the periodical literature of
the day is occupied in these family feuds, and consists of mere
“ doubtful disputations !” How large a portion of ministerial
talent is placed in requisition to sustain this conflict ? How
many precious hours of time are thus applied ? If all the time
and talent and effort spent by the orthodox protestant churches
in disputing with one another about the points of their differ¬
ence, since the blessed Reformation, had been devoted to the
projects of benevolent enterprise for the unconverted heathen
world, who can calculate the progress that might have been
made in evangelizing the gentile nations ? Let every true dis¬
ciple of the Saviour inquire, why do 600 millions of our fellow
men languish in the shadows of death eighteen hundred years
after the blessed gospel has been entrusted to Christian hands
for them ? Four and fifty times has the entire population of
the globe been swept into eternity, since the Saviour commis¬
sioned his disciples to publish the glad tidings to every crea-

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

ture. Who that has witnessed the prompt and overwhelming
blessing of God on the efforts of the little band of Christians in
Europe and America during the last thirty years ; who that has
seen a nation new-created almost in a day in the isles of the
Pacific, and witnessed the standard of the cross erected in Af¬
rica, in Greece, in Turkey, in Hindoostan, in Ceylon, in China
and many other places ; and the glorious gospel of the Son of
God translated into about one hundred and fifty languages; who
that reflects on the millions of Bibles and the tens of millions of
tracts which the united bands of liberal minded Christians have
sent forth, can doubt that if the Christian church had not be¬
come secularized by the unhappy union with the civil govern¬
ment under Constantine in the fourth century, the world had
long ago been evangelized. Or if the Protestant church had
not been split into so many parties by adopting the new, and
we must believe unauthorized and pernicious doctrine, that they
had a right to adopt for themselves and require of others as
terms of communion, not only the fundamental doctrines which
were required in the earlier centuries and were supposed suf¬
ficient for hundreds of years after the apostolic age, but also as
many additional and disputed points as they pleased , thus di¬
viding the body of Christ and creating internal dissensions ; who
that is acquainted with her history can doubt that greater, far
greater, inroads would have been made into the dominions of
the papal beast, and the glorious gospel of the Son of God, in
the three centuries since the Reformation, have been carried
to the ends of the earth.

Such then being the mournful consequences of that disunion
against which the Saviour and his apostles so urgently admon¬
ished their followers, we feel with double force, that the church
has been guilty of suicidal error, and that it is the solemn duty
of every friend of Jesus, sincerely to inquire, Lord what wouldst
thou have me do to heal the wounds of thy dismembered body !

CHAPTER II.

J . , . » | ' i

Deeply impressed with the conviction, that the blessed Sa¬
viour and his apostles have explicitly inhibited the division of
the body of Christ into sectarian parties or factions, and fully
persuaded that these divisions which exist among Protestants

Dr. SchmucJcer’s Appeal.

generally, at least with their present concomitants , are highly
prejudicial to the prosperity of Zion ; let us approach the in¬
quiry, what is the ; more immediate and specific nature of that
union , which characterized the primitive church, and which it
is obligatory on us to promote. As Protestants, who are ready
to exclaim with Chillingworth, “ the Bible, the Bible” is the
only infallible source of our religion, we must naturally turn our
eyes to its sacred pages ; nor can we with safety rely on the
practice of the church in any subsequent age, except in so far
as it accords with apostolical example, or at least is a manifest
development of principles clearly inculcated in the gospel. It
is indeed worthy of remark, that we know next to nothing of
the history of the Christian church during more than a hundred
years after its first establishment, except what is contained in
the New Testament. This has often been regretted by men ;
but God has doubtless designedly enveloped that early period
of her uninspired history in darkness, to compel us to rest en¬
tirely on his own infallible word, and to draw a clear and broad
line of distinction between the authority of his inspired servants
and that of the fathers of the church in after ages. The histo¬
ry and practice of the earlier ages when known, may afford an
occasional illustration of our subject ; yet, as protestants, we can
acknowledge nothing as essential to the character of the church,
or the duties of her members, which is not distinctly contained
in the sacred volume.

It is certain, that this union did not consist in any compact
ecclesiastical organization of the entire church in a nation or
empire under one supreme judicatory .

Excepting an occasional interposition of apostolical authority,
we are informed, that each church attended to its own affairs of
government and discipline. Addressing the Corinthians,* Paul
says “ Do not ye judge ( xylveie ) them that are within ? There¬
fore put ye away ( i'taQuie ) from among yourselves that wick¬
ed person manifestly attributing to the Corinthians the right
to discipline and exclude an unworthy member from their body.
The same right of supervision and discipline over her members,
is attributed to each individual church by the Saviour himself :j*

“ ^ thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his fault
between thee and him alone” — and eventually, if other means
should fail, u tell it to the church.” Nor do we find in either
of these cases any ultimate reference to a judicatory consisting

* 1 Cor. 5: 12. f Matt. 18: 15—17. See also 2 Cor. 2: 7.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

of representatives from several, much less from all other Chris¬
tian churches. The phraseology* of the New Testament evi¬
dently implies, that each church was a distinct and complete
church and a member of the body of Christ. It is however
equally certain, that the New Testament presents in addition to
several minor consultations, one example of a council or synod, f
whose members were “ the apostles, elders (that is, preachers),
and brethren (that is, lay members),” and who assembled at
Jerusalem for the purpose of settling a dispute touching the ob¬
ligation of Christian converts to observe “ the law of Moses, etc.”
This synod was convened for a special purpose, was a pro re
nata convention, and although it fully sanctions the call of such
meetings as often as necessary, and justifies a provision for sta¬
ted meetings if experience establishes their necessity and utility ;
yet it cannot with any plausibility be alleged, that the churches
were then regularly united into such synods, or that such meet¬
ings were held regularly, at fixed times. Had they been of an¬
nual recurrence, who can doubt that some trace of the fact, or
allusion to it, would be found in the Acts of the apostles or the
epistles of Paul, which cover a period of about thirty years, and
narrate or allude to the prominent events in the history of the
church during that period ? These facts urge upon our atten¬
tion several important positions, the value of which will be more
evident in the sequel. 'They are these :

a) That the divine Head of the church has intrusted the
great mass of the duties and privileges of his kingdom to the
individual churches in their primary capacity. Hence, though
the churches ought to take counsel with each other, and for
this purpose may have stated meetings , and constitute regular
synods , they should not suffer any encroachments on their rights,
nor permit too much of their business to be transacted by these
delegated associations or presbyteries or synods. The neglect
of this caution gradually robbed the churches of their rights
and liberties in past ages, and fostered that incubus of Christiani¬
ty, the papal hierarchy at Rome.

b) The duty of fraternal consultation and union of counsel
ought not to be neglected by the church in the discharge of
her duties. This principle evidently affords sanction to the va¬
rious associations among the churches such as presbyteries, sy-

* Gal. 1:2. 1 Cor. 16: 1. 2 Cor. 8: 1. 1 Thess. 2: 14. Acts. 9: 31.
15: 41.

f Acts xv.

Dr. Schmuckcr’s Appeal.

nods, etc., for the purposes of mutual counsel, encouragement
and cooperation in the performance of such duties as can best
be accomplished by conjunction of means and efforts. Yet the
history of past ages distinctly admonishes us to beware of the
natural tendency to consolidation in church as well as State.
There is doubtless danger of the concentration of power in the
hands of ecclesiastical judicatories, which has in former ages,
alas ! been but too frequently abused to purposes of oppression
and bloodshed, to the destruction of liberty of conscience, and
the obstruction of the Redeemer’s spiritual kingdom. It ap¬
pears inexpedient for the churches to devolve on their delega¬
ted judicatories, such duties as they can perform as well in
their primary capacity for another reason ; because, when du¬
ties of various kinds are accumulated on any individual bodies,
they must necessarily be less able to discharge them all with
efficiency.

It is evident then, that in the apostolic age, the unity of the
church did not consist in a compact conjunction of all her parts
in an ecclesiastical judicatory. On the contrary, we have no
accounts of any synods or councils after that age, until the lat¬
ter part of the second century. Eusebius, the earliest author
by whom the transactions of these councils are recorded, uses
the following language, from which it is highly probable that such
councils were nothing new, and that similar ones had been occa¬
sionally held during the previous seventy-five years which had
intervened since the death of the last apostle :* “ About this

time appeared Novatus, a presbyter of the church of Rome,
and a man elated with haughtiness against those (that had fall-

c * Euseb. Book (>. chapter 43. JEjitidr] ttsq xr\ y.axa tovtmv ciQ^sig
vnsQrj&avicc Noovaiog ir,g Pcofiatwv ixy.Xrjariag 7iQ£cr(jvT£Qog, wg [irjx&z
ovdfjg ctvzolg cycoTtjQcag sXTiidog^ ^Tjd si tiuvtix sig ETtiO'TQOcptjv yvijcriciv
xai> xa&aQotv £goy.oXoyrj<iLV etilteXoIev, idiag ulQiasug tcov y.a ta Xoyujfxov
qpicnwcnv Ka&aQovg ectVTOvg unocprjvaviwv, cagyriyog xa{H<na,zai . Ecp
at avvodov piEyicTTyg etu Pwiurjg cnjykQbJTtj&slar^g, e^xovza yiEv tov ciql&-
flOV ETIIO'XOTIMV^ TlXsiOVMV ds £T L fXttXXoV TlQEfffivTEQWV TE y.dl SiCCXOVWV,
idsojg T£ nazct rag Xon uxg inuqyiag t mv xutu ywgav tioi/uevcov tteqI tov
nQaxTsov diMaxEipttnivwv, doy/na naQiaTcacu io~ig noun 4 Tov (zsv Noovoc-
xov at uct t dig ^ a vico crvvsnotfj&Eiai, zovg ts crvvEvdoxElv rfj [ucradtXqib) xal
anavdQMnoTUTT] yv(a[ir) % avdyog n(joouQOfxvErovg, sv aXXoiQioig i?jg hxX?]-
criag iiy£tcr&cu ‘ t ovg ds t avpcpoQU nEQinEmoiXOTitg tmv adsXywv, iacr-
•d~cu xcu S^E^nnsvEiv t dig T?jg [xicivoiuG (poiQuvty.oig. Edit. Zinunenriann,
Vol. I. p. 464, 465,

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

en), as if there were no room for them to hope for salvation y
not even if they performed all things which belong to a genuine
conversion, and a pure confession. He thus became the leader
of the peculiar sect of those, who inflated by vain imaginations,
called themselves Cathari. A very large council being held at
Rome on this account, at which sixty bishops and a still great¬
er number of presbyters and deacons were present, and the pas¬
tors of the- remaining provinces, having according to their loca¬
tion deliberated separately what should be done ; this decree
was passed by all : That Novatus and those who so arrogantly
united with him, and those that had chosen to adopt the unchar¬
itable and most inhuman opinion of the man, should be ranked
among such as are aliens from the church (excluded) ; but that
such of the brethren, as had fallen during the calamity (perse¬
cution), should be treated and healed with the remedies of re¬
pentance.”

This is the earliest account extant of any regular synod after
the apostolic age. The absence of even the least intimation,
that this assembly was any thing novel, confers a high degree
of probability on the supposition that other similar meetings had
occasionally occurred before. But it was not until the close of
the second, or beginning of the third century, that these asso¬
ciations began to hold regular and stated meetings. This prac¬
tice was first introduced in Greece, where the popular mind had
been familiarized to such stated representative conventions, by
the Amphictionic Council, and would naturally be inclined to
transfer to the church, what had proved so acceptable in State.*
Still the introduction of regular stated meetings had to encoun¬
ter some opposition, for Tertullian, in the commencement of
the third century, found it necessary to undertake their defence.^
By the middle of the third century, however, these stated an¬
nual meetings had become very general. J Lay representatives

* See Neander’s Kirchengeschichte, Vol. I. p. 322. Tertullian’s
words are, “ Aguntur per Graecias ilia certis in locis concilia, ex uni-
versis ecclesiis, per quae et altiora quaeque in commune tractantur et
ipsa representatio totius nominis Christian*! magna veneratione cele-
bratur.” De Jejuniis, c, 13.

f “ Ista solennia, quibus tunc praesens patrocinatus est Sermo.” —
Tertullian.

{ Cyprian. Ep. 40. and Firmilianus, (apud Cyprian. Ep. 75.) of
Cappadocia : Necessario apud nos fit, ut per singulos annos seniores
et praepositi in unum conveniamus, ad disponenda ea quae curae
mostrae commissa sunt. Neander sup. cit. p. 322.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

were at first admitted to these councils, as the “ brethren” evi¬
dently had been in the apostolic age ; but in process of time
the bishops secured all this power to themselves.* These con¬
ventions were merely provincial, and embraced the churches of
only one particular country or province. The entire Christian
church was not yet united by any supreme judicatory, having
jurisdiction over all its parts, as eventually occurred under the
papal hierarchy ; but here we find for the first time a visible
union of all the acknowledged churches in a particular coun¬
try under one ecclesiastical judicatory . Such an extensive
union in one judicatory, could not long fail to abridge freedom
of investigation and liberty of conscience ; if its powers were
not purely those of an advisory council , and its advice confined
to matters originating between the smaller judicatories and con¬
templating their relation to each other, and the progress of the
church in general.

Again, the primitive unity of the church of Christ did not
consist in the organization of the whole church on earth under
one visible head , such as the pope at Rome and the papal hie¬
rarchy. We shall not here stop to prove, that the power given
alike by the Saviour to all the apostles,*]* could not confer any
peculiar authority on Peter : nor that Peter’s having professed
the doctrine of the Saviour’s Messiahship, on which the Lord
founded his church, does not prove that he founded it on Peter
himself, making him and his successors his vicars upon earth.
It is admitted by all Protestants that the pope is a creature as
utterly unknown to the Bible as is the Grand Lama of the
Tartars. It is well known, that the papal hierarchy is the
gradual production of many centuries of corruption. In the
third century the churches of a particular kingdom or province,
were united by provincial synods ; but it remained for the ar¬
dent African bishop Cyprian, after the middle of the third cen-
tury, by an unhappy confusion of the visible with the invisible
church, to develope in all its lineaments the theory of a neces-

# Neander sup. cit. p. 324.

f Matt. 16: 19 : And I will give unto thee (Peter v. 18) the keys
of the kingdom of heaven : and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth,
shall be bound in heaven ; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth
shall be loosed in heaven. Chap. 18: 1, 18 : At the same time came
the disciples unto Jesus, etc. — He said — Verily I say unto you (disci¬
ples v. 1) whatsoever ye shall bind on earth, shall be bound in hea¬
ven : and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth, shall be loosed in heaven.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal. 27

sary visible union of the whole church on earth in one uniform
external organization, under a definite apostolic succession of
bishops, as the essential channel of the Spirit’s influences on
earth, transmitted by ordination.* It is only under the influ¬
ence of this confused theory, that enlightened and good men
could believe in the impossibility of salvation without the pales
of their own visible church ! That such a man as Augustine ,
could advance the following sentiments in the official epistle of
the Synod assembled at Cirra in the year 412 : Quisquis ab
bac catholica ecclesia fuerit separatus, quantumlibet laudabiliter
se vivere existimet, hoc solo scelere, quod a Christi imitate dis-
junctus est, non habebit vitam, sed ira Dei manet super ipsum.
Quisquis autem in ecclesia bene vixerit, nihil ei praejudicant
aliena peccata, quia unusquisque in ea proprium onus port ahitT
et quicunque in ea corpus Christi manducaverit indigne, judi¬
cium sibi' manducat et bibit , quo satis ostendit apostolus, quia
non alteri manducat sed sibi — communio malorum non maculat
aliquem participatione sacramentorum, sed consensione facto-
rum.f And in his own work “ De fide et symbolcq” written
about twenty years earlier, he says : J “ We believe that the
church is both holy and universal (i. e. one). The heretics ,
however , also denominate their congregations churches. But
they , by entertaining^ false views concerning God, do violence
to the Christian faith : the schismatics on the other hand ,
although they agree with us in doctrine , forsake brotherly love
by creating pernicious divisions. ”

It is easily perceptible, how this erroneous idea of the neces¬
sary visible combination of all the churches under one organiza-

* Neander’s Kirchengeschichte, Vol. I. p. 330, 331.

f Fuch’s Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen, Vol. III. p. 303.

“ Whoever separates himself from this universal church, however
praiseworthy he may suppose his general conduct to be, shall not
obtain life on account of this crime alone , that he is separated from
the unity of Christ, but the wrath of God abideth on him. But who¬
ever leads an exemplary life in the church, shall not be injured by the
sins of others, because in it (the church) everyone shall bear his own
burden, and whoever eateth the body of Christ unworthily, shall eat
and drink judgment to himself, by which the apostle clearly shows,
that as he eats not for another, but for himself, — it is not the commu¬
nion with the wicked in the reception of the sacraments, which con¬
taminates any one, but his assent to their evil deeds.”

t Koepler’s Bibliothek der Kirchenvater, Vol. IV. p. 240.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

lion, as the supposed exclusive channel of the divine influence
and favor, would naturally tend to facilitate the ultimate adop¬
tion of the papal hierarchy ; for here, and here alone, in the
holy father, is to be found one visible, tangible head, adapted
to the one universal visible church. That this opinion how¬
ever, was not that of the apostles or of the apostolic age, is
confirmed by the concurrent testimony of all writers in the
earlier centuries. On this subject an interesting testimony has
reached us in the Apostolic Canons, so called because the work
professes to be and in the main is a collection of the principal
customs and regulations for the government, discipline, etc. of
the Christian church during the first four centuries from the days
of the apostles. It was most probably compiled shortly after
the time of Augustine, in the middle of the fifth century, and
clearly proves that the exclusive pretensions of the bishop of
Rome were not acknowledged even at that time : It reads thus :

Canon 33. The bishops of each nation should know the
principal one among them , and regard him as their head ( zovg
inioxoTiovg ixaozov ixtvovg iidevac ygtj tov tv avzocg nQwzov,yiul
ijytiG&cu avzov cog xtcpcdqv') and undertake nothing of impor¬
tance without his advice. But each one should himself attend
to what belongs to his own church and neighborhood. But
even he ought to do nothing without consultation with others
(dXXu fxridt ixtivog avev zrjg navzcov yvwy^g noitizco zef Herein
consists the true unity (of the church ), and such a course will
tend to the glory of God through Jesus Christ, in the Holy
Spirit .”

In short it is well known, that the bishop of Rome did not
obtain even the title of universal bishop until, in the seventh
century, “ Boniface III. engaged Phocas, the Grecian Emperor,
who waded to the throne through the blood of Mauritius, to
take from the bishop of Constantinople the title of oecumenical
or universal bishop, and to confer it on the Roman pontiff.”
His dignity as a temporal prince he did not receive till in the
eighth century, when the usurper Pepin, in consideration of the
aid afforded him by the pontiff in treasonably dethroning his
predecessor, granted “ the exarchate of Ravenna, and Penta-
polis” to the Roman pontiff, and his successors in the pretended
apostolic see of St. Peter. There can therefore be no question
as to the truth of our position, that the primitive church was
not united under one visible head, such as the pope and papal
hierarchy.

Dr. Schmucker- $ Appeal.

Finally, it is certain that the unity of the primitive church
did not consist in absolute unanimity in religious sentiments.
This assertion may appear startling to some. “ What !” (some
of my readers may be ready to exclaim) “ was there any diver¬
sity of opinion in the primitive church, under apostolic guidance?
we have always supposed, that there existed a perfect agree¬
ment on all points among the first Christians, and that the proper
method to restore the primitive purity of the church is to insist
on agreement on all points from those who could unite with us
as a church of Christ.” This opinion has also prevailed for
many centuries, and has been the prolific mother of extensive
and incalculable evils in the Christian church. It has led to the
persecution and death of millions of our fellow men under the
papal dominion, it has caused endless divisions and envyings
and strife in the Protestant churches.

Its fallacy we think appears from the following considerations :

It is rendered highly probable by the fact that the Scriptures
contain no provision to preserve absolute unity of sentiment on
all points of religious doctrines and worship if it ever had existed.
Many points of doctrine and forms which men at present regard
as important, are not decided at all in the sacred volume. Other
points are inculcated in indefinite language, which admits of sev¬
eral constructions. The diversity of views derived from these
records by the several religious denominations of equal piety, of
equal talent and equal sincerity, indisputably establishes the fact,
that they do not contain provision for absolute unity of sentiment
among Christians. Now as all admit the substantial similarity
of the oral instructions of the apostles to the primitive Christians,
and their written instructions in the sacred volume, it follows
that the impressions made on an audience of primitive Chris¬
tians would be the same ; except perhaps in the case of a few
individuals who might have opportunity of personal interviews
and more minute inquiry with the apostles. With the greatest
facility the Author of our holy religion could have made such
provision. He did by inspiration endow his apostles with every
requisite qualification not naturally possessed by them, and led
them into all necessary truth. Now as they have left many
points of doctrine and forms of worship and government unde¬
cided, and as they do not express with philosophical precision
the doctrines which they do teach, it is a just inference that one
reason why these minor differences are not obviated in the
chuich, and all truly pious, able and faithful Christians do

Dr. Sclmucker' s Appeal.

not agree on all points is, that the sacred volume has not made
provision for such absolute unanimity. Let no one here assert
that human language is so deficient, and the education and
habits of men so diverse, that they will impose different con¬
structions on any composition. The contrary is the case.
Even uninspired men of well disciplined mind, have often ex¬
pressed their views on these topics in language which is not mis¬
understood. Is there any doubt, in any well informed mind, as
to the opinions taught on the several topics which separate the
principal protestant churches, by Calvin in his Institutes, or by
Whitby on the Five Points? In regard to the meaning of

J o O

some protestant creeds there has been, it is true, not a little
controversy. But the framers of these Confessions designedly
used language somewhat generic and indefinite, in order that
persons of not entirely accordant sentiments might sign them,
and modern disputants of each party have endeavored to prove
these creeds favorable only to their own views. Or, persons
charged with deviation from an adopted creed, and believing
themselves to adhere to its general tenor, are naturally inclined
to interpret its indefinite or generic terms in favor of their own
views, whilst their opponents, pursuing a contrary course, strain
those same expressions as far as possible in a different direction.
But it will not he fienied, that it would be no difficult task for
any well educated divine to make, in a single octavo page, such
a statement of doctrines, as would distinguish any one of the
prominent protestant denominations from all others, — to frame a
creed, concerning whose real meaning, there would be no dif¬
ference of opinion. Therefore, as the written instructions of
the apostles and other inspired writers, do not contain provision
to produce absolute unanimity among the pious since the apos¬
tolic age, and as these very written instructions were addressed
to the primitive Christians, and were the only inspired instruc¬
tions which many of them possessed ; there can be but little
doubt, that if a dozen of those Christians had been required to
state their views on all the points of diversity between protes¬
tant Christians, it would have been found, that the impressions
then made bv these books, were not more definite than those
which they now produce on the same points of doctrine. And
as the oral teaching of the apostles was doubtless substantially the
same as their recorded instructions ; the impression made by
them on the entire primitive church was probably the same so
far as doctrines are concerned ; whilst it is evident, that in re-

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

gard to the apostles’ mode of worship and church government,
there could have been but one opinion, among those who had
witnessed them with their own eyes. Again, the fact that the
Bible is not constituted so as to obviate this diversity of senti¬
ment, when it might easily have been so formed by the hand
of inspiration, is conclusive proof that the points of diversity
among real and enlightened Christians , are not and cannot be
of essential importance.

But the existence of diversity of opinion in the apostolic
churches is placed beyond all possible doubt by the express
declaration of the apostle Paul , who, knowing that such differ¬
ences would continue to exist in after ages, has also prescribed
regulations for our conduct towards those who may differ from
us : * “ Him that is weak in the faith, receive ye but not (in

order) to (engage in) disputations with him about doubtful mat¬
ters. For one believeth that he may eat all things : another,
who is weak, eateth herbs. Let not him that eatetb, despise
him that eateth not ; and let not him that eateth not, judge him
that eateth ; for God hath received him. Who art thou that
judgest another man’s servant ? To his own master he standeth
or falleth. — One man esteem eth one day above another ; anoth¬
er esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully per¬
suaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth
it to the Lord ; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord
he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for
he giveth God thanks ; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he
eateth not, and giveth God thanks. — But why dost thou judge
thy brother ? or why dost thou set at nought thy brother ? for
we shall all stand before the judgment seat of Christ.”

Here then we have the express testimony of the apostle, that
differences of opinion did exist among the primitive Christians
at Rome in reference to at least two points, the diversity of
meats and the question whether all days should be regarded as
equally holy, or whether the Jewish distinction of days should
be observed by Christians. Both the points of difference are
moreover of such a character, relating to matters of fact, tangi¬
ble and visible in their nature, that any regulation which the
apostle may have previously given, Christians would be aided
in comprehending, by observing the example and practice of
the apostles themselves. They were matters too concerning

* Rom. 14: 1 — 13,

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

one of which he had seven years before expressed his opinion
in pretty evident language to the Galatian brethren, when he
said : * “ How turn ye again to the weak and beggarly ele¬
ments whereunto ye desire again to be in bondage ? Ye ob¬
serve days and months and times and years ; I am afraid of
you lest I have bestowed upon you labor in vain.” And how
does the apostle settle this dispute among the Romans ? How
does he introduce perfect unity of sentiment among them on
this point of Christian duty ? It is worthy of special observa¬
tion, that he does not even attempt to induce them all to think
alike ; but enjoins on each one obedience to the dictates of his
own conscience, and on all abstinence from every attempt to
condemn or censure their brethren for honest difference of opin¬
ion ; he enjoins on all mutual forbearance and brotherly unity !
Be it remembered too, that this point of difference among the
primitive Christians, f is one, on which the declarations of the
New Testament have produced pretty general unanimity among
modern protestant Christians, whilst it is a matter of historical
notoriety that the diversity on this very topic was not entirely
banished from the primitive church a century after all the books
of the New Testament which touch on the subject had been
written.

Again, look at the church of Corinth itself, whose attempts
at division Paul so decidedly censured. The apostle explicitly
informs us, that some members of the Corinthian church deni¬
ed the resurrection of the body. As to the reason of their de¬
nial, whether the leaven of the Sadducees had infected them,
or whether, as Greeks, they were misled by their philosophy
falsely so called, and with Celsus despised the doctrine as “ the
hope of worms,” the elms Gxcolyxwv, we know not ; but for
the fact Paul is our authority. “ How,” he remarks, “ say
some among you , that there is no resurrection of the dead ?”
He then advances several arguments in favor of the doctrine,
answers the philosophical objections to it, and proves to them
the fallacy of their opinion on this subject; but not the least
intimation is given, that those who believe in the resurrection
should separate from those who denied it. This doctrine had

* Gal. 4: 10.

f According to the earliest records extant the difference in the
time of celebrating Easter is referred to the apostles themselves. See
Dr. Murdock’s Mosheim I. 102, 103. 164.

Ur. Schmucker’s Appeal.

not, it is true, been so amply unfolded by any inspired writer
as is done by Paul in his epistle to these very men, and we are
unable to perceive how any believer in the Scriptures could
now deny this doctrine. Yet the fact of the resurrection, to
say nothing of the Old Testament, had been distinctly affirmed
by the Saviour and his apostles, as must have been known to
the Corinthians.

It is therefore absolutely certain that the bond of primitive
union, was not that of perfect unity of sentiment on religious
subjects even in the days of the apostles themselves. That dif¬
ferences on other topics, especially on minor points of abstract
doctrine, also existed, is evident from the fact expressly decla¬
red, that some even went so far as to fall into fundamental doc¬
trinal error, such as to “ deny the Lord that bought them.”
Now every rational man will admit, that the progress of the
human mind in the fluctuation of opinions is gradual, and that
where the extremes occurred the intermediate gradations must
have existed. It seems almost impossible for a mind elevated
but a single grade above savageism, when for example the doc*
trine was taught that Christ made an atonement for sinners, not
to advert to the persons for whom this atonement was made,
and to understand the declarations of the gospel as teaching,
that it was made for somebody, either for all men or a portion
of mankind. But although we have no reason to imagine that
the same books which are differently understood by modern
Christians, could have produced absolute unity of opinion among
them ; we find no certain traces of dissension about points of
abstract doctrine. As these abstract differences had no per¬
ceptible influence on Christian practice, the primitive Christians
probably did not even compare their views on many points of
modern controversy, and may have differed on some minor top¬
ics without knowing it. Yet on some points they differed and
discussed ; but Paul dissuades them from indulging in “ doubt¬
ful disputations.”*

Having thus, as we suppose, satisfactorily ascertained, that the
bond of union among the apostolic churches did not consist in a
compact ecclesiastical organization of the entire church in any
nation or country under one supreme judicatory ; nor in the

# Rom. 14: 1 : Him that is weak in the faith (who has not fully ap¬
prehended all the Christian doctrines) receive ye, but not to doubtful
disputations [yr} eig hiunqLaug dLuioyiaywv, without deciding on his
scruples).

.‘34

Dr. SchmucJcer’s Appeal.

organization of the whole church on earth under one visible
head , such as the pope and papal hierarchy ; and finally, that it
did not consist in absolute unanimity of religious sentiment ; it
remains for us to inquire into the positive elements which did
compose it — whilst each congregation transacted its ordinary
business of government and discipline for itself, and constituted
as it were one member of the body of Christ, what were the
ties by which these several members were united together, and
by which the spirit ol brotherly love was preserved among
them ?

We here presuppose the prevalence among the primitive
Christians of that unity of spirit, which gave life and value to
all the external forms of union. Without this, the church, even
if externally bound together by a bond of iron, would be a life¬
less trunk destitute of that pervading spirit that gives interest
and animation to the whole. But on this subject we are not
permitted to cherish a moment’s doubt. We are expressly
told by Luke in his Acts of the Apostles :* “ And the mul¬
titude of them that believed , were of one heart and, of one soul.”
Then it was that the disciples continued “ with one accord,
breaking bread from house to house, and did eat their meat
with gladness and with singleness of heart, praising God and
having favor with the people. ”f It is this unity of spirit, this
undissembled brotherly love, cherished in their bosoms and
manifested in their conduct towards each other, which invested
the example ol the primitive church with such an omnipotence of
moral power, and extorted from the surrounding heathen them¬
selves the exclamation : “ See how these Christians love one
another.” But our object at this time is to ascertain, what
were the principal external means of manifesting and perpet¬
uating this unity of spirit among the primitive Christian churches.

I. The first means of union was entire unity of name ; that
is, the careful avoidance of all names, which implied difference
or division. In the apostolic age, the followers of the Redeemer
were technically called Christians, and only Christians. The
churches in different places were distinguished by geographical
designations, and by these alone. We read of the church at
Jerusalem, the church at Corinth, the church at Rome, etc.
but not of the Pauline or Apolline or Cephine church, nor of
a church named after any other person but him, who bought

# Acts 4: 32.

f Acts 2: 46.

Dr. Schmucker s Appeal.

the church — not a part of the church, but the whole church,
with his blood. Let it not be supposed, that this is an unim¬
portant feature of Christian union. Paul the apostle did not
thus regard it, when he so promptly met and repelled the at¬
tempt of those at Corinth, who adopted such sectarian names,
saying “ I am of Paul and I am of Apollas and I am of Cephas.”
He expressly forbade their adoption of such names, declaring
that by so doing they implied, that their adopted leaders had
died for them, and that they had been baptized into their names.
The sentiments of the church, during the earlier centuries, may
be learned from the declaration of Lactantius at the commence¬
ment of the fourth century : “ The Montanists, Novatians, Val-
entians — or whatever else they may call themselves, have ceas¬
ed to be Christians, because they have renounced the name of
Christians, and called themselves by the names of men.” (In-
stit. div. 1. IV. c. 30). This estimate of the importance of
unity of name , is doubtless overwrought ; yet the influence of
different names is far from being unimportant at present.
“ Names are things” said that distinguished and laborious ser-
vant of Christ, the Rev. Dr. A. Green, when on assuming the
editorial chair of “ The Presbyterian Magazine,” he changed
its title to Christian Advocate. His reasons for this alteration
he thus assigns: “We usually form some judgment of a pub¬
lication from its title ; and indeed, it is for this very purpose
that a title is given. Now on hearing of a Presbyterian Mag¬
azine, some, it appears, have set it down at once as a sectarian
work, of which the main and ultimate design would be to dif¬
fuse and defend the doctrines and opinions which are peculiar
to the Presbyterians, and on this account they have resolved to
give it no encouragement.” What is here acknowledged of
the term Presbyterian, is equally true of every other sectarian
name of Christian churches. Whilst it is conceded that the
substitution of geographical for sectarian names could not re¬
move the whole difficulty ; it is equally certain that it would
not be without its influence. Even Celsus, the bitter foe of
Christians, when charging on them as criminal their differences
on nonessentials which prevailed among them in his day, was
compelled to acknowledge as one bond of union among them,
their unity of name. Thousands of enlightened, true Christians
of different denominations differ only in name. And thousands
there are among the more ignorant, who exhibit much acerbity
against other sects and prepossessions for their own, and yet

Dr. Schmuclcer’s Appeal.

are ignorant of all the points of distinction between them ex¬
cept the name.

The second bond of union among the primitive churches,
was unity of opinion on all fundamental doctrines , that is, the
profession of a creed of fundamentals. That the primitive
Christians, notwithstanding their minor differences, did agree on
all fundamental doctrines, is evident, because they possessed
either the oral instruction of the apostles, or the same sacred
records of them which have produced such unity in fundamen¬
tals among modern Christians. It is presupposed by the apos¬
tle s injunction u earnestly to contend for the faith once delivered
to the saints ;” for, before they could contend for the faith,
they must have a general understanding among them at least as
to what the fundamentals of that faith are, for they were also
commanded to abstain from “ doubtful disputations,” and not
“ t° judge” their brethren for minor differences. It is finally
proved by the fact, that they required of every candidate for
baptism a profession of his creed of faith prior to the adminis¬
tration of the ordinance : “ If thou believes?’ (said Philip to the
eunuch) u with all thine heart , thou mayest be baptized. And
he answered and solid., I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of
God. * The custom of requiring of all applicants for baptism
a confession of their faith in the fundamentals of the gospel,
seems to have been general throughout the whole church.
For among the earliest documents of Christian antiquity that
have reached us, there is one which by the universal testimony
of the Christian fathers, is an authentic collection of the several
points of doctrine to which this assent was required from the
days of the apostles, we mean the so called Apostles’ Creed.
This creed is highly interesting and important, especially to
modern Christians ; first, because it shows what the primitive
church universally understood the Scriptures to teach ; and
secondly, because it incontestibly establishes the fact, that the
primitive church, when guided by the inspired apostles, and
soon after, deemed it lawful to require unanimity only in fun¬
damental doctrines in order to the unity of the church. This
creed, let it further be remembered, was the only one which
was adopted in the church of Christ until the fourth century, in
which the council of Nice adopted one of the same import, and
of but little greater length. Some small variations are found in

* Acts 8: 37. See also Rom. 12: 6. 2 Tim. 1: 14. Jude v. 3.

Dr. Schmuckcr’s Appeal.

the earliest copies, but substantially it reads thus :* I believe in
God the Father Almighty , the Maker of heaven and earth :

And in Jesus Christ , his only Son our Ford ; who was con¬
ceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Mary, suffered
under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and buried. ^-The
third day he rose from the dead, he ascended into heaven, and
sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty , from
thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead.

I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic or universal
church ,* the communion of saints ; the forgiveness of sins ;
the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting .

To this, some copies add the sentence “ descended into
hades, or the place of departed spirits f but it was not found in

# The earliest copies of this symbol are in the Latin language.
There are several various readings extant, which probably originated
in different Western churches, which used this symbol. We shall
give the symbol, together with the various readings in parentheses,
so that the reader may at one glance see the whole, and also per¬
ceive that even with the added variations, it was still a creed which
all orthodox Protestants can subscribe :

I. Credo in (tinum) Deum, Patrem omnipotentem creatorem coeli
et terrae (“ creatorem coeli et ferrae” defuit in orient, et Rom. antiquo
symbolo : in Aquilejensi autetn positum erat, “ invisibilem et impassi -
bilem”)

II. Et in Jesum Christum filium ejus unicum, Dominum nostrum,
(“ et in unum Dominum nostrum, Jesum Christum, filium ejus uni-
genitum ,” ita addendo et transponendo legit olitn Ecclesia orientalis.)
Qui conceptus est de Spiritu sancto ; natus ex Maria virgine (“qui
natus est de Spiritu sancto ex Maria virgine” communis olirri lectio
erat.) Passus sub Pontio Pilato, crucifixus, mortuus et sepultus, de-
scendit ad inferna ; (“crucifixus sub Pontio Pilato et sepultus” sim-
pliciter olirri multi legebant ; Aquilejense tandem symbolum addidit

descendit ad inferna ;” ex quo symbolo Sec. VI. Romana ecclesia
banc appendicern suo symbolo inseruit) tertia die resurrexit a mor-
tuis ; ascendit ad coelos ; sedet ad dextram Dei Patris omnipotentis.
Inde venturus est judicare vivos et mortuos.

III. Credo in spintum sanctum (“ et in spiritum sanctum” olim),
Sanctam (“ unam” orientales addiderunt) Ecclesiam Catholicam ;
sanctorum communionem, (“ catholicam, ex sanctorum communio-
nem” ex Niceno forsan symbolo insertum, olim defuit), Remissionem
peccatorum ; Carnis (hvjus symb. Aquilej. addidit) resurrectionem ;
et vitam aeternam. Amen, (“vitam aeternam” in plerisque olim sym-
bolis desiderabatur). See Clemm’s Einleitung in die Religion und
Theologie, Vol. IV. p. 459.

Dr. SchmuckeP s Appeal.

the. creed of the Latin churches, until the sixth century. Here
then we have the series of doctrines, the belief of which was
the bond of union in the church of Christ during three hundred
years ; and was regarded as sufficient for ecclesiastical union,
without any inquiry as to differences on minor points. All who
adopted these doctrines and adorned them by a consistent walk,
were regarded as worthy members of the one, universal church
of Christ, were every where admitted to sacramental commun¬
ion by right. All professing these doctrines, and residing in
the same place, were united into one church, and worshipped
together ; and different Christian churches, occupying the same
geographical ground, and distinguished from each other by dif¬
ferences concerning doctrines not contained in this creed, had
no existence in the church for several centuries : were totally
unknown during the golden age of Christianity. To this sum¬
mary of doctrine some few articles were added in after ages by
different councils, to meet several fundamental heresies which
arose. But the additions are few, and generally composed
with studious brevity. In reference to these doctrines, which
he had just before expressed in his own language, Irenaeus, a
strenuous defender of the faith against various heretics, a disci¬
ple of Polycarp, the friend of the apostle John, makes the fol¬
lowing remarks ( which are equally applicable to the several
orthodox Protestant churches though they are so lamentably
divided) : “ This faith the church has received, and though dis¬
persed over the whole world, assiduously preserves as if she in¬
habited a single house ; and believes in these things as having
but one heart and one soul : and with perfect harmony pro¬
claims, teaches, hands down these things, as though she had
but one mouth. For though there are various and dissimilar
languages in the world ; yet the power of the faith transmitted
is one and the same. Neither the churches in Germany , nor
in Iberia, (Spain), nor among the Celtae (in France), nor in
the East, nor in Egypt, nor in Lybia, nor in the middle regions
of the world (Jerusalem and the adjacent districts) believe or
teach any other doctrines. But as the sun is one and the same
throughout the whole ; so the preaching of the truth shines
every where, and enlightens all men, who are willing to come
to a knowledge of truth. Nor will the most powerful in speech
among the governors of the churches say any thing more than
these ; (for no one can be above his master) ; nor the most
feeble any thing less. For as there is but one faith, he that is

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal. 39

able to speak much cannot enlarge ; nor he who can say little
diminish it.”#

In the earlier part of the fourth century (A. D. 325) the
Nicene Creed was adopted in order to exclude the Arians from
the church. It is little else than a repetition of the apostles’
creed, with several clauses referring to the error of the Arians.
The synod of Constantinople about fifty-six years afterwards
(A. D. 381) still further enlarged this summary, by the addi¬
tion of several clauses concerning the worship of the Holy
Spirit, the validity of baptism, etc. This creed as enlarged by
the synod of Constantinople, is contained in the symbols of the
Lutheran church in Europe, and also in the Prayer Book of
our Protestant Episcopal brethren in this country. It reads
thus :

“ I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of
heaven and earth and of all things visible and invisible.

“ And in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only begotten Son of
God, begotten of his Father before all worlds ; God of God,
Light of Light, true God of the true God, begotten not made,
being of one substance with the Father, by whom all things
were made ; who for us men and for our salvation, pame down
from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy Ghost of the virgin
Mary, and was made man and was crucified also for us under
Pontius Pilate. He suffered and was buried, and the third day
he rose again, according to the Scriptures, and ascended into
heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of the Father; and he
shall come again with glory to judge both the quick and the
dead ; whose kingdom shall have no end.

“ And I believe in the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Giver of
life, who proceedeth from the Father and the Son, who with
the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified,
who spake by the prophets. And I believe in one catholic
and apostolic church. I acknowledge one baptism for the re¬
mission of sins ; and I look for the resurrection of the dead and
the life of the world to come.f ”

* Irenaeus adv. haereses, L. I. e. 3. p. 46. ed. Grabe : and Mason’s
Plea, p. 41.

f The following is the Greek original of the JVicene Creed, as pre¬
served in the History of Socrates, L. I. c. 8. By a comparison of it
with the above version, the reader may distinguish the additions made
by the council of Constantinople.

UuTTsvofxev stg eva Oeov f nazEQu nuvTOKQctzoQa, navzwv ogaii av te r.cu

Dr. Schmucker* s Appeal.

These symbols, let it be remembered, we adduce not for the
purpose of proving the doctrines contained in them, (a point
to be established only by the Scriptures) but in order to estab¬
lish two facts highly important to our inquiry, viz. 1) that the
early Christians did require assent to certain articles of Christian
faith ;) and 2) that these articles to which assent was required,
were only fundamental doctrines and facts of the Christian re¬
ligion.

It is thus evident that unity of opinion on fundamental doc¬
trines and on those alone , constituted one of the principal bonds
ol union among churches in the early ages. It is moreover
clear, as the several orthodox protestant churches of our land
cordially embrace all the doctrines enumerated by lrenaeus and
the Apostles’ and the Nicene creeds, that they ought not on
the principles of primitive Christianity, to be cut up into different
sects, but should be united into one universal church. But in¬
stead of all the Protestant churches embracing one common
creed of fundamentals, and holding it up to the view of the
world as the symbol of their unity in the faith as Christians did
in the earlier ages at every case of baptism ; the use of different
creeds naturally inculcates the idea of doctrinal difference in-

ctoQa tmp noil] T)]v. Kai tig era Kvqiov Irjcrovv Xqkjxov , tov vlov tov
0tov) ysvvi]&Evza ex tov llaTQog [xovoyEvr]} x ovi eaxiv ex xrjg ovaiag tov
IIuTQog , Oeov ex Oeov you cpiog ex cpiaxog , Oeov aXij&ivov ex Oeov aXi]~
•&LVOV, yevvijxXevxa ov 7roii]&evTcc, ofuoovaiov xco tiutqi , 8i ov xa navxa
eyevsTO, xa te ev xoj ovQctvco, xai xa ev xi ; yi 7, 81 ijfzag av&Qomovg, xai
81a TT]V 1][IETEQ(XV OCOTtjQlUV XaisX&OVTa XCtU aUQXOl&EVTa X(U EVaV&Qbmi]-
crctvTa naxXovxu xcu uvacnavxa xr} xqiti] T]/j,£Qa , aveX&ovxa elg.xovg oi<Qa-
rovg} eQ/o^ietov XQivai £ oivxag xai vexgovg. Kai tig to ayiov nveipa.
The above was the original form of the creed, and contains all that
catechumens were required to repeat as their confession. The fol¬
lowing clause was however added by the Nicene fathers, and all
ministers^ were required also to subscribe to it : Tovg 8e Xeyovzag oxi

1]V 7TOTE OTl OVX 1]V , Xai 7TQ1JV yEVVl]\Xr]Vai OVX T]V, xai bxi e| ovx OVTOJV
eyevsTo } ij^ et egag vnocnaaewg ij ovenag cpacrxovieg elvai , i] xtkttov f i]
xqetctov } X] aXXoionov tov viov xov Oeov , avad^e^aTi^ei ?/ ayiu xaxXoXixi]
xai ajiocnoXixi] exxXi]cria , i. e. The holy, catholic and apostolic church
condemns (the opinion of) those who say, that there was a time when
the Son of God did not exist, and that before he was begotten he did
not exist, and that he was made out of things that were not, or who
say that he is of some other hypostasis or substance, or that he was
created, or that he is changeable or subject to variation. See Clemm’s
Einleitung in Religion und Theologie, Vol. IV. p. 464-5.

Dr. Schmucker's Appeal.

stead of unity ; and their great length, by bringing to light all
the minor differences, and ranking them indiscriminately with
the fundamentals, and making them the basis of separate
churches, inevitably must tend to throw into the shade our real
fundamental union and perpetuate the schisms in the body of
Christ.

The third bond of union among the primitive Christians,
was the mutual acknowledgement of each other's acts of disci¬
pline. If an individual was excommunicated or under censure
in one church, he could not obtain admission into any other.
As a security against imposition, it was customary for persons
in good standing, when travelling into strange places, to take
letters of introduction, or certificates of their good standing from
the pastor. When any one was destitute of such certificate,
his application for church privileges was always rejected. To
these letters Paul refers, and expresses the opinion, that he
would need no such document among the Corinthians, as he
was well known to them : u Need we, as some others, epistles
of commendation to you, or letters of commendation from you ?
Ye are our epistle, written in our hearts, known and read of all
men.” * This same custom was prescribed in the church for
centuries, and numerous synodical decrees were enacted for its
confirmation. In the apostolic Canons or Regulations we find
the following :

Canon 12. Et x ig xb^gixog r\ \cuxog dqwQtopevog, r\xoi udex-
xog, anel&wv tig titgunolti, dsyft] avev ygappaxcog avoxaxixcov,
aqogifea&a) xul d fts^ccptvog v.at d de%&Hg.” f That this regu¬
lation prevailed from the very days of the apostles, is highly
probable, because, as we have seen, Paul himself makes men¬
tion of letters of this nature. At the oecumenical or general
council held at Nice, in the year A. D. 325, at which were
present ministers from the greater part of the Christian world,
the following resolution, or canon, was adopted :

Resolution or Canon 5. In regard, to those persons, wheth¬
er clergymen or laymen , who have been excommunicated by a
bishop , the existing rule is to be retamed, namely, that they

* 2 Cor. 3: 1—4.

f If any excommunicated clergyman, or a layman who has been ex¬
communicated, or denied admission (as member of the church), go to
another city and is received without letters of recommendation , both he
who receives him, and the person thus received shall be excommunicated .

Dr. Schmuckcr s Appeal.

shall not be restored by any other than by the one who excom¬
municated them. Inquiry ought however to be instituted ,
whether their expulsion from the church was not occasioned by
a contentious spirit or some other mean or hostile passion .
And in order that this may be properly done, there shall
annually be two synods held, in each province, and at these
meetings of the bishops, suitable examinations shall be institu¬
ted, m order that every person may see the justice of the ex¬
communication of those who transgressed against (the regula¬
tions of) the bishop, until the assemblage of bishops shall, if
they see fit, pronounce a milder sentence. One of those synod¬
ical meetings shall be held before the spring fast, the other in
the fall. *

At the council or synod of Antioch, held fa A. D. 341,
sixteen years after that at Nice, a resolution of just the same
import was passed :

Resolution 6. If any person has been excommunicated by
his bishop, he shall not be restored by any one else than that
bishop himself \ unless his case has been examined by the council
or synod , and a milder sentence been obtained. This regula¬
tion shall be applicable alike to laymen, presbyters, deacons,
and all the clergy. f

From these testimonies it is abundantly evident, that the
churches in the earlier centuries fully acknowledged the disci¬
plinarian acts of each other : nor is it difficult to perceive the
salutary influence which would result from such mutual marks
of confidence. Carried to a reasonable extent, they would give
an efficacy to church discipline, which it has almost entirely
lost in modern times. This regulation would cherish brotherly
love between the churches, and tend to give visibility to their
union.

The fourth bond of union among the primitive Christians
was sacramental and ministerial communion. This feature is
one of very extensive application and most salutary influence
on the different portions of the Christian church. The apostle
Paul may be regarded as inculcating it in his declaration to the
Christians at Corinth ; “ For we being many , are one bread and
one body (that is, you at Corinth, I and my fellow-Christians
here at Ephesus, from the midst of whom I am addressing you, are

# Fuch’s Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen, Vol. I. p. 394.
f Ibid. Vol. II. p. 62.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

one body) ; for we are all partakers of that one bread.
Accordingly we find, that in the earliest period to which the
records of Christian antiquity extend, every church received to
communion as fully as its own members, the members and min¬
isters of every other acknowledged Christian church on earth,
upon evidence of their good standing. Strangers coming from
other churches were required to present letters or certificates of
their standing ; and all Christians, whether clergy or laymen,
regarded it as a duty to commune with the members of any
other church, at which they happened to be present. It was a
common custom for Christians in the earlier centuries, when
travelling, to take such certificates of membership with them ;
and when stopping in a city or town, they sought out the
Christians living in it, and received from them every mark of
attention and friendship. These letters were termed literae
formatae or ygaupaza ztivncofuia, as they were of a particular
form to prevent counterfeits ; they were sometimes denominat¬
ed epistolae communicatoriae, or ygcppuzu xoivcovr/.u, letters of
ecclesiastical communion or fellowship.!

The broad principle of scriptural Christian communion extends
indiscriminately to all whom we regard as true disciples of
Christ. Thus it is laid down by Peter in his vindication, when
censured for communing with Gentile converts : “ thou wentest
in to men uncircumcised and didst eat with them.” J His ar¬
gument is thus summed up, after he had detailed the facts on
which it rested ; “ Forasmuch as God gave them the like gift ,
as he did unto us, who believed on the Lord Jesus Christ;
what was I, that 1 could withstand God 7”

It is equally certain that ministerial communion and official
acknowledgement pervaded the church in her primitive ages.
The regulations made by different synods or councils to prevent
the abuse of this privilege incontestibly establish its existence.
But even in the apostolic canons we find the following :

Canon 32. Mr\dtvu zcov gevwv Itugxotkov r\ ng£G{3vzegcov rj
chaxovMv dvev ovGzazixcov npoode/todca ' xca hucpegopevoiv
avccov dvaxgiveo&ojGciv * xgu zjpfv ojoi afjgvxeg zrjg evotfiezug
TigoGdeyfGxtoiGav * ei de prjys, zrjv ygecav ctvzoig sTuyogr]yriGot.vztgf

* 1 Cor. 10: 17.

t Neander’s Allgemeine Geschichte der Christlichen Religion und
Kirche, Vol. I. p. 320.

t Acts 12: 3, 17.

44 Dr. Schmucker' s Appeal.

tiQ xoivcovuxp auiovg f. it] nyoods§eo{}6 ' noXXa yap holt a gvvolq-
■naytjv yivticu.*

At the synod of Carthage, held A. D. 348 or 349, it was
resolved that u no one shall receive a minister without letters
from his bishop.” j-

It furnished with suitable testimonials a minister in one part
of the church was acknowledged as such in every other, and if
present at public worship was ordinarily invited to take part in
conducting the services.

The tendency which such free sacramental intercommunion
as opportunity offers with all over the whole earth who present
credible evidence of genuine discipleship, cannot readily be cal¬
culated. The views and principles and feelings which it pre¬
supposes, constitute important elements of the millennial union of
the future church. God grant their speedy dissemination over
the church universal 1

fifth means by which unity was promoted and preserv¬
ed among the primitive Christians, was occasional epistolary
communication. Of this fact we have abundant proof in the
epistles of Clement, Polycarp, Ignatius and Barnabas, who are
termed apostolic fathers, because they lived partly in the apos¬
tolic age. Some of these epistles are doubtless spurious and all
corrupted, yet enough remains to answer the purpose for which
we adduce them to show that they were letters written to dif¬
ferent churches to promote doctrinal and ecclesiastical union
among them. The age immediately subsequent to the apos¬
tles furnishes numerous instances of such epistolary communion
of the churches. From Eusebius we learn that Dionysius of
Corinth about the year A. D. 160, sent abroad numerous epis¬
tles of this kind. “ And first (says Eusebius*) we must speak

# “ Let no one receive strange (foreign) bishops or presbyters or
deacons without letters of recommendation ; and the letters that are
bi ought must be examined. If they prove to be pious preachers
(preachers of piety) let them be received: but if they do not; their
immediate necessities should be supplied, but they must not be re¬
ceived into communion. For many instances of fraud have occurred

in this matter.” Koepler’s Bibliothek der Kirchenvater, Vol. IV. p.
240»

f Fuch’s Bibliothek der Kirchenversammlungen, Vol. III. p. 35.

* Eusebius, IV. ch. 23. Kal tiqmtov ye negl JlovvoIov cponeov'
ort T£ T?jg iv KoqIv&lo naQowiag tov % ijg imoxonij? iyxexelqLoxo -&qovov,
xtu &;$ tijg iv&sov (fdonoviag ov fxovov % dig vn axrtov, aXX ydy xcu t oig

Ur. Schmucker’ s Appeal.

of Dionysius, who was appointed over the church at Corinth,
and imparted freely not only to his own people, but to others
abroad also, the blessings of his divine labors. But he was most
useful to all in the general epistles which he addressed to the
churches. One of them is addressed to the Lacedaemonians,
and contains instructions in the true religion, and inculcates
peace and unity : one also to the Athenians, exciting them to
the faith and the life prescribed by the gospel, from which he
shows that they had swerved, so that they had nearly fallen
from the truth since the martyrdom of Publius, their leader
(bishop) which happened in the persecutions of those times.
The necessity of such letters as means of Christian instruction,
is at present superseded by the universal dissemination of the
holy Scriptures ; yet as bonds of Christian union, they may still
be occasionally resorted to with the happiest results, especially
between Christians of distant countries as a substitute for per¬
sonal intercourse. We cannot but commend the epistle of the
venerable Dr. Planck of Germany, to the General Synod of the
Lutheran Church in this country, as also the epistles of the
Congregational and Presbyterian churches of the United States
to the Christians of the same denomination in Europe. Still,
all these epistles bear on their front the badge of schism ; for
they were addressed by particular sects of Christians, not to
Christians of another country generally, but only to Christians
of the same sect. They are epistles from followers of Paul and
Apollos in one land, to disciples of the same leaders in another.
So completely has sectarianism separated the several denomina¬
tions, that by many it is regarded as immodest to address any
others than those of their own sect. Instead of that community
of interest between all the members of Christ’s body, which the
apostle inculcates, “ so that all the members should have the
same care one for another, and whether one member suffer, all
the members suffer with it sectarianism has taught each

dm t ijg aXXodctnijg dcp&ovwg sy.oivwvsi * /Q7](jl}iWTmov caiacnv eavTov
yaxHaiag, iv cdg vtieivtiovio xa&oXiy.cug ngog tug txxh](nc(g snKTToXaig *
(ov itJTiv, ij fAEV TiQog A unsdaifiovlovg, c()d'odoAug xca ^y^Tiyrj, sigijVTjg ts
y.at h'wascog vtto&etix?}' i) ds nqog A£h]vcdovg; difysoTiyi] tiktisws xctl
Ttjg xvtTaio EvayysXlov noXiTeiag ’ ijg oXiyo)^?jadvTag iXty/Ei, log av [mx-
qov 8uv anoaiocvTug tov Xoyov , ovtieq t ov tcqoegtojxu avTcov Hov-
nliov fj,DCQTVQTj(TDu jcccioc Toiig xoT£ (rvve{j)j Sicoyyovg.

* 1 Cor. 12: 26.

Dr . Sckmucker s Appeal.

member of the body to stand aloof from the others, has taught
them by no means to “ have the same care one for another ! !”

_ The last bond of primitive union was the occasional consulta¬
tion of different churches by representatives convened in a coun¬
cil or synod. This means ol prolonging unity among Christians
was for several reasons not very frequently resorted to in the
apostolic age. The continual journies of the apostles tended
in a measure to answer the same purpose. How often coun¬
cils for mutual consultation were held, prior to that at Rome,
mentioned by Eusebius, we know not ; but the principle being
sanctioned by the apostolic example, Acts xv., the church
should apply it just as extensively as is found to promote the
spirit of union, brotherly love and order among Christians. As
however neither Christ nor his apostles have appointed such
bodies as courts of j udicature or appeal ; it is probable, that
whatever business of this kind is referred to the more extensive
judicatories, their decisions should be regarded mainly as advi-
sory, and should have no other force than results from the evi¬
dence alleged in support of the opinion given. The danger
of such General Synods, Assemblies, or Conventions, arises not
so much from the number of churches represented in them,
as from the great number of the delegates, from the degree of
power conferred on them by the elementary members of Christ’s
body, the individual churches ; and from the amount of actual
business which is transferred from the churches in their elemen¬
tary capacity , to these judicatories. If the delegation be small,
so that the whole body will not be unwieldy ; if the business
transacted be not such as properly belongs to the individual
churches ; if it relate only to the general interests of the church ;
and if the powers of the body be only advisory ; this principle
of mutual consultation might to a certain extent be safely em¬
ployed.

In view of these facts and principles, the writer regarded
with high approbation the proposition for a re-organization of
the General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church by making
it an Advisory Council. That measure, which was proposed
in the Biblical Repertory of 1832, was by uncontradicted fame
attributed to the Rev. Dr. Alexander, and contains a distinguish¬
ed specimen of practical wisdom, and enlarged views of the
principles of our holy religion, in their application to ecclesias¬
tical jurisprudence. On precisely the same general principles,
j 1 e Lutheran Church in this country was

Dr. SchmucJcer’s Appeal.

founded seventeen years ago, and of its salutary and safe prac¬
tical operation, scarcely a dissenting voice is heard among the
enlightened friends of evangelical piety among us.

We have thus endeavored faithfully to exhibit the features
which constituted the unity of the primitive church. Let us
now pursue the subject further, deduce the principles furnished
by these facts, and finally develope a plan to restore the unity
of the body of Christ on the same apostolic principles, which
constituted it in the primitive ages ; a consummation which
ought to be devoutly wished for by every disciple of that Sav¬
iour who so earnestly prayed for the union of his followers ;
an object so dear to the heart of the nobleminded Calvin, that
to accomplish it he says : “ As to myself, were I likely to be

of any service , 1 would not hesitate , were it necessary , for such
a purpose to cross ten seas.” (Quantum ad me attinet, siquis
mei usus fore videbitur, ne decern quidem maria, si opus sit, ob
earn rem trajicere pigeat. Calvin’s Epist. p. 61).

CHAPTER III.

Whilst contemplating the church ol the Redeemer Irom
the time when the Master tabernacled in the flesh, to the
present day, we are, as was formerly remarked, forcibly struck
by the contrast between her visible unity in the earlier centu¬
ries, and the multitude of her divisions since the Reformation.
During the former period, the great mass of the orthodox Chris¬
tian community on earth, constituted one universal or catholic
church ; excepting only several comparatively small clusters of
Christians, such as the Donatists and Novatians. Now, the
purest portion of God’s heritage, the Protestant world, is cleft
into a multitude of parties, each claiming superior purity, each
maintaining a separate ecclesiastical organization. The separa¬
tion of the Protestants from the Papal hierarchy, was an insu¬
perable duty ; for Rome had poisoned the fountains of truth by
her corruptions, and death or a refusal to drink from her cup
was the only alternative. “ Babylon, the great, was fallen”

Dr. Schmiicker’s Appeal.

under the divine displeasure, and “ the voice from heaven”
must he obeyed, “ Come out of her, my people, that ye be not
partakers of her sins, and that ye receive not her plagues.”*
But that the Protestants themselves should afterwards separate
from each other ; should break communion with those whom
they professed to regard as brethren, was inconsistent with the
practice of the apostolic church, and, at least in the extent to
which it was carried, and the principle on which it was based,
detrimental to the interests of the Christian cause. But it must not
be forgotten, that the position thus assumed, was, so far as its ulte¬
rior results are concerned, rather adventitious than designed. The
Protestant churches struggled into existence amid circumstances of
excitement, oppression and agitation both civil and ecclesiastical.
This state of things was highly unpropitious alike to the forma¬
tion of perfect views of church polity in theory, and their intro¬
duction in practice. The Reformation itself, could not have
been effected, unless aided by the civil arm, which protected
its agents from papal vengeance. A total exclusion of the civil
authorities from ecclesiastical action, would probably have blast¬
ed the Reformation in the bud ; even if the views of the earlier
Reformers had led them to desire such exclusion. Owing
partly to these circumstances, and partly to the remains of pa¬
pal bigotry still adhering to them, the Protestants in different
countries successively assumed organizations not only entirely
separate, as in some respects they properly might be ; but hav¬
ing little reference to the church as a whole, and calculated to
cast into the back ground the fundamental unity which actually
exists between them. Without entering into a detail of their
origin, it may not be amiss, in view of the popular reader, to
advert to the successive dates of their formation.

The Lutheran church grew up with the Reformation itself,
which commenced in 1517. The early history of the one, in
Germany, Denmark, Prussia, Sweden, and Norway is also the
history of the other. The commencement of the church may
be dated, either from 1520, when Luther renounced his allegi¬
ance to popery, by committing the emblems of papal powrnr,
the bulls and canons, to the flames ; or, more properly it may
be fixed at 1 530, when the reformers presented their confession
of faith, to the emperor and diet at Augsburg, it is to be re¬
gretted, that this eldest branch of the Protestant church adopt-

* Rev. 18: 3, 4.

Dr. Schmucker1 s Appeal.

ed a sectarian name; thus fostering excessive reverence for the
opinions of an illustrious yet fallible servant of God, erecting
them into a standard of orthodoxy, and making his doctrinal at¬
tainments the ne plus ultra of ecclesiastical reformation. For,
the church being termed Lutheran, it was a very popular argu¬
ment, which bigots did not fail to wield, that lie who rejected
any of Luther’s opinions was untrue to the church which bore
his name. Had some generic designation been assumed, and
only generic principles been adopted for the organization of the
church, the work of reformation might have been gradually ad¬
vanced until every vestige of popery was obliterated, without
hurling the charge of unfaithfulness at any one. Yet, it is but
justice to that distinguished servant of God to add, that the
name was given to his followers by his enemies from derision,
whilst he protested against it with his accustomed energy. “ 1
beg (said he) that men would abstain from using my name,
and would call themselves not Lutherans, but Christians.
What is Luther ? My doctrine is not mine. Neither was I
crucified for any one. Paul would not suffer Christians to be
called after him, nor Peter, but after Christ (1 Cor. 3: 4, 5).
Why should it happen to me, poor, corruptible food of worms,
that the disciples of Christ should be called after my abomina¬
ble name ? Be it not so, beloved friends, but let us extirpate
party names, and be called Christians ; for it is the doctrine of
Christ that we teach.”

The German Reformed church was next established through
the agency of that distinguished servant of Christ, Zwingli. He
commenced his public efforts as a Reformer in 1519, by oppos¬
ing the sale of indulgences by the Romish agent Sampson. In
1531 a permanent religious peace was made in Switzerland,
securing mutual toleration both to the reformed and to the
Catholics, and thus stability was given to this portion of the
Protestant Church.

The Episcopal church may be dated from 1533, when
Henry VIII. renounced his allegiance to the pope, and separated
the church of England from the papal see ; although the work of
actually reforming this church was accomplished at a later date.

The Baptist church may be referred to the year 1535,
when Menno Simon commenced his career; or to 1536,
when it was regularly organized.

The Calvinistic or Presbyterian church , using the phrase to
designate the church established by Calvin himself, may be

Dr. SchmuckeC s Appeal.

dated at 1536, when he was appointed minister at Geneva, or
more properly at 1542 when he established the presbytery there.

The Presbyterian church in England, Scotland and America,
may be regarded as a continuation of the church, founded by
this eminent servant of God.

The Congregational or Independent church may be dated
from 1616, when the first Independent or Congregational church
was organized in England by Mr. Jacob.

The modem Moravian church or church of the United
Brethren , may be regarded as originating in 1727, when Count
Zinzendorf and Baron Waterville were selected as directors of
the fraternity. Both the Moravian and the Baptist churches
trace their origin to Christian communities prior to the Reforma¬
tion. But our design is merely to enumerate the dates of the
existing most extensive Protestant denominations; in doing
which, we have selected the earliest periods, in order that read¬
ers of no particular church might dissent or feel aggrieved.

The origin of the Methodist church may be traced to 1729,
when its honored founder Mr. John Wesley, and Mr. Morgan
commenced their meetings for the practical study of the sacred
volume.

Numerous other denominations of minor extent, are found
among us, whose principles coincide more or less with those of
the churches here specified. All these together constitute the
aggregate Protestant church, and are the great mass of the visi¬
ble church of the Redeemer, engaged in promoting his mediato¬
rial reign on earth, and owned by his Spirit’s blessing.

Causes of sectarian strife between the different branches of the

Protestant church.

In continental Europe the sectarian principle is not exhibited
in its full development. There, either the Lutheran or Re¬
formed church, and in some instances both are established by
law ; and the number of dissenters, if any exist, is very small.
In England, where a greater amount of liberty is enjoyed, and
the press is unshackled, dissenters from the established church
are far more numerous. But it is only in these United States,
where Christianity has been divorced from the civil government,
and restored to its primitive dependence on its own moral power,
that all sects are on perfect equality, and the natural tendency
of sectarianism is witnessed in its full latitude. The separation
between church and state is worthy of all praise, and demands

Dr. SchmucJccr s Appeal.

our warmest gratitude to Heaven. It has restored the Ameri¬
can Protestant church to the original advantages of the golden
age of Christianity in the apostolic days. In this land of refuge
for oppressed Europe, God has placed his people in circumstan¬
ces most auspicious for the gradual “ perfecting ” of his visible
kingdom. Here we are enabled, unencumbered by entangling
alliances with civil government, to review the history of the
Redeemer’s kingdom for eighteen hundred years, to trace the
rise and progress of error in all its forms, to witness the effects
of every different measure, and by a species of experimental
eclecticism, rejecting every thing injurious, to combine all that
has proved advantageous, and incorporate it in the structure and
relations of the Protestant church. And has not God, in his
providence called us to this work ? Has he not, by our pecu¬
liar situation imposed on us this obligation ? Ought not every
man, be he minister or layman, who wields any influence in any
Christian denomination, strive to rise to the level of this sublime
undertaking, and inquire : Whence originates the strife among
the different branches of the Protestant church ; and how may
their union on apostolic principles be most successfully effected ?
Among the causes of this strife we may enumerate the following :

1. The absence of any visible bond , or indication of union,
between the different churches in any city , town or neighbor¬
hood, ivhilst each of them is connected, to other churches else¬
where of their own denomination. This circumstance constant¬
ly cherishes the unfriendly conviction, that each church prefers
other distant churches to their own neighboring brethren. If
the churches were all independent, having no closer connexion
with any others abroad, than with their neighbors at home,
there would be less occasion for this feeling. No bond of out¬
ward union at all, would be more conducive to brotherly love
among neighbors, than a bond which excludes those around,
us and unites us to others afar off. The effect of this stimulant
to apathy or disregard between neighboring disciples of the
same Saviour is witnessed in our cities, which contain several
churches of the same denomination, united by a common con¬
fession and by their Synodical or Presbyterial relations. How
much nearer do the churches of the same denomination feel to
each other, than to other sects not thus connected, though equal¬
ly and sometimes more contiguous !

•2. The. next cause of strife among churches is their separate
organization on the ground of doctrinal diversity. Separate

Dr. Schmuclctr' s Appeal.

organization becomes necessary in any association whose mem¬
bers are numerous, and spread over a large extent of country.
This is no less the case in church than in state. But the most
natural ground of division among those professedly belonging to
the same great family, and aiming at the same ends, is geographi¬
cal proximity ; as is seen in the division of our common country
into States and these again into counties, and as existed in the
Christian church in the apostolic age. But when the division is
made according to a principle totally different from this, when
it is actually made on the ground of difference between certain
portions of this common family ; it constantly holds up to view
not only the existence of some difference, but also the fact, that
this difference is so important, as to require those entertaining
it to separate from one another. Now as of two conflicting
opinions only one can be true ; it also implies, that each party
regards the other as in important error, and that itself professes
superior purity. This is virtually judging our brother, and per¬
petuating the recollection of our judgment by founding on it a
peculiarity in the structure of our ecclesiastical organization.
This circumstance is obviously calculated to beget unfriendly
feelings, and to cherish bigotry ; and its effect will be propor¬
tioned to the density and exclusiveness of the organization based
on it. In the primitive church, when no different denomina¬
tions of Christians existed, but all professors of Christianity, of
contiguous residence, whether they entirely agreed in opinion
or not, belonged to the same church ; the bigotry and pride of
the human heart found food only in the separate interests of
neighboring churches occupying different ground. But to this
is now unhappily added the conflict of interests resulting from
the occupancy of the same ground by two churches, as also the
conflicting interests of separate extended ecclesiastical organiza¬
tions, aiming to occupy the same location.

3. The third source of sectarian strife, may be found in the
use of trans fundamental creeds .* We have already seen that
creeds properly constructed are useful in the church. We be¬
lieve it may easily be established, that either in written or oral
form they are essential. They existed in the primitive church
in the latter form, and were productive of good and only good.
They were soon reduced to writing in the so-called Apostles’

* By transfundamental creeds we would designate those creeds
which embody not only the undisputed doctrines of Christianity, but
also the sectarian peculiarities of some particular denomination.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

creed, and served as a bond of union during the first four cen-
tuiies of the church, among all who held the fundamentals of
truth. But at that time creeds were confined to fundamentals.
Neither the Apostles’ nor the Nicene creed amounts to more
than a single octavo page ; and to the whole of the former and
most of the latter all the different orthodox churches of the
present day could subscribe. That the brevity of these creeds
did not anse from the absence of diversity of views is certain.
It has been proved in a former part of this Appeal, that there
did exist differences of opinion, even in the apostolic age, on
some points, regarded by us as highly important. To that evi¬
dence, fully satisfactory because derived from God’s infallible
word, we would here subjoin a highly important passage from
Origen, to prove that such diversities of opinion continued to
characterize the church from that day till the middle of the
third century, at which time he wrote. The apostolic fathers
also, would afford us important testimony on this point. Their
writings have, indeed, reached us in a corrupted state ; yet
enough remains fully to answer our purpose ; for the differen¬
ces which they endeavor to allay must have existed. We shall,
however, confine ourselves to the passage from Origen, which we
believe has not before been presented to the American public.
Origen, let it be borne in mind, was the most learned Christian
writer who had appeared from the time of the apostles. He
was born but eighty-five years after St. John’s death, and there¬
fore may have seen persons who lived in the apostolic age.
The infidel Celsus had asserted, that in the beginning, when
Christians were few in number, there was unanimity on all
points, but that in his day, the latter part of the second century
(A. D. 176), they differed on many subjects. The followino- is
Origen’s reply : “ But he (Celsus) also asserts, that they (the
primitive Christians) all agreed in their opinions ; not observing
that from the beginning there were different opinions among be¬
lievers (Christians) as to the selection of the books to be re¬
garded as divine. Moreover, whilst the apostles were yet
preaching, and those who were eye-witnesses were teaching the
things which they had learned of Jesus, there was not a tittle
dispute among the Jewish believers, concerning those gentiles
who embraced the Christian doctrines, whether it was their du¬
ty to observe the Jewish rites ; or whether the burden of clean
and unclean meats might not be removed, as unnecessary, from
those among the gentiles who abandon the customs of their fa-

Dr. Schmucker's Appeal .

thers and believe in Jesus. And in the epistles of Paul we per¬
ceive that in the time of those who had seen Jesus, some were
found who called in question the resurrection, and disputed
whether it had not already taken place ; and also concerning
the day of the Lord, whether it was just at hand or not; and
that (admonition) to avoid profane, vain babblings and the op¬
positions of knowledge falsely so called, which some professing,
have made shipwreck concerning the faith ; hence it is manifest
that from the very beginning certain differences of opinion oc¬
curred, at a time when (as Celsus supposes) the number of the
believers was yet small. Then, when discoursing about the
differences of opinion amongst Christians, he upbraids us, saying
that when the Christians became numerous and were scattered
abroad, they were repeatedly split up and cut into parties, each
wishing to maintain their own position, and then (he adds) — di¬
viding again, and quarrelling among themselves: until, so to
speak, they agreed in only one thing, that is, in name, if
even for shame’s sake they still have this left in common ;
but that in all other things they differ. To this we re¬
ply, that there never has been a subject, whose principles are
of any moment and of importance in life, concerning which dif¬
ferent opinions have not existed. Thus, because medicine is
useful and necessary to the human family, there are many dis¬
puted points in it, relating to the different modes of curing the
diseased. Hence different parties (schools or systems) in med¬
icine are confessedly formed among the Greeks, and I believe
also among such of the barbarous nations as avail themselves of
the healing art. And again, because philosophy professes to
teach the truth and instructs us in a knowledge of t lie things

- O

which exist, and how we ought to live, and aims at showing
what will be advantageous to our race, it has many topics of
dispute. Hence in philosophy also, there are very many parties
(systems, schools,) some more and others less distinguished.”*

Here, then, we have the testimony alike of the most distin-

# Origenes contra Celsmn, pp. 120, 121. edit. Hoeschelii.— f t is evi¬
dent from the context, and certain from history, that Origen when
speaking of numerous differences among the Christians of his day,
uses the word algtcrig to signify diversities of opinion, or systems of
opinions and parties maintaining them, without any separate ecclesi¬
astical organization based on them, and without interruption of sacra¬
mental and ministerial ecclesiastical intercommunion of the parties.
We have accordingly thus rendered it in the version in the text.

Dr. Schmucktr* s Appeal.

guished infidel and Christian of the second and third century,
to the existence of differences of opinion (not separate ecclesi¬
astical organizations) in the Christian church ; yet at that time
the only creed which it was deemed proper to use, was that
termed the Apostles’ creed. In short, there is no doubt, that
the different so called orthodox Protestant churches, are in re¬
ality as much united in the fundamental doctrines of Christianity
as the church in the earlier centuries was. But modern creeds in¬
stead of giving prominence to this unity, and preserving it by
adding a few sentences to these venerable ancient confessions,
in order to exclude the fundamental errors which have sprung
up since the fourth century, are swelled some to fifty and some
to a hundred times their size ! 1 Thus they necessarily intro¬
duce so many minor points of doctrine and opinion, that few of
the members of the churches professing them do in reality be¬
lieve all their contents! When the minor points of difference
are embodied in a creed, they become the stereotyped charac¬
teristics of a new sect, and enlist in their defence many of the
unsanctified principles of our nature. They become wedges of
dissension to split in pieces the body of Christ, they form per¬
manent barriers of division and bulwarks of schism in his church.

4. The fourth cause of alienation among Christians is the
sectarian training of the rising generation. No principle is
more fully established in the philosophy of mind, no fact more
uniformly attested by the experience of ages, than that the im¬
pressions of early life are most lasting, that the prejudices of
childhood and youth pursue us through every subsequent period
of life. And whoever faithfully traces to its source the sectarian
alienation of Christians will, we think, be constrained to attribute
much of it to early sectarian training.

How often do not many parents in the presence of their chil¬
dren, exhibit their prejudices against other religious denomina¬
tions ? How much more frequently do they exalt their own
denomination above all others, either directly or by comparative
allusions ? Are there not some parents, and alas that it should
be so ! some pastors too, who strive more by direct effort to in¬
stil a disregard for others and a preference for their own sect
into the minds of children, long before they are competent to
comprehend or estimate the grounds of the supposed preference ?
What else is this than an effort to sow the seeds of sheer preju¬
dice in the tender minds of children ? It is right that the pre¬
possessions and antipathies of youth should be not indeed excited,

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal

but properly directed ; yet, for the bleeding Saviour’s sake, let
the former be enlisted in the favor of Christianity, not of secta-
riantsm, and the latter be directed against the enemies of the

cioss, and not against those whom we profess to acknowledge
as its friends !

o. The next source of alienation among Christians, is what
may e teimed sectarian idolatry or m an-w or ship , inordinate
veneration for distinguished theologians, such as Luther, Cal¬
vin, Zwingli, Wesley and others. What candid man, possess-
mg any extensive acquaintance with the literature of past ages,
can deny that the deference awarded to the opinions and prac¬
tice of these men, is altogether inordinate, entirely beyond
what is due to the merits of other men, and far above the
measitie of their actual superiority. Protestants justly censure
the Romish church for reposing such confidence in the authori¬
ty of the ancient Fathers, that is, of distinguished theologians of
the first foui or five centuries of the Christian church. Yet it
may be doubted whether some Protestants have not inadvert¬
ently conceded to some of these modern Fathers an influence
somewhat similar, possibly in a few cases even equal in degree,
ihe names of these good and great yet fallible men, have be¬
come identified with certain distinguishing non-fundamental
doctrines which they held, and by which they were distin¬
guished from others. Their authority and influence, acquired
y then zeal and success in behalf of the common Christianity,
aie thus often used as a shield of protection for these minor pe¬
culiarities. The very designation of these peculiarities by per¬
sonal names, calls into play sectarian associations, and sinister

Fathers* ^ ^ ^ °f C°Veit appeal t0 the authority of these

Moreover each sect is prone to cultivate almost exclusively the
literature of its own denomination. Enter the theological schools
or the private libraries of ministers, and you will find that <ren-

j m i ™ 3nC^ ^a^v^n^sts and Episcopalians and Baptists
and Methodists, devote most of their time to the study of au¬
thors of their own denominations, and this peculiarity may also
be distinctly traced in the libraries of many lay Christians,
x any of these distinguished servants of God would have grieved
to think of the sectarian use, which posterity has made of their
names and literary labors. Listen to the language of Luther,
whose name and works were for two centuries especially thus
employed in Germany for purposes of strife : “ I had cherished

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal 57

the hope, that henceforth men would apply to the holy Scrip¬
tures themselves, and let my books alone ; as they have now
accomplished their end and have conducted the hearts of men
to the Scriptures, which was my design in writing them. What
profit is there in the making of many books, and yet remaining
ignorant of the book of books. Better far to drink out of the
fountain itself, than out of the little rivulets which have con¬
ducted you to it.# — Whoever now wishes to have my books, I
entreat him by no means to let them be an obstacle to his
studying the Scriptures themselves. But let him look upon my
books, as I do on the decretals of the popes and books of the
sophists, that is, though I occasionally look into them to see
what they performed, and to examine the history of the times,
I by no means study them under the impression, that I must do
as they teach.f Yet there is reason to fear, that some good
men have by early and long continued training become so much
accustomed to test and value their views, rather as being Lu¬
theran or Calvinistic than biblical, have so long been in the
habit of dwelling on the conformity of their sentiments to those
of Luther, Calvin, Wesley, or some other worthy of the church,
that they would feel deeply distressed and almost lost, if these
names were wrested from them ! In the spirit of such sectari¬
anism we might commiserate the condition of the primitive dis¬
ciples whose Christianity was based on the Saviour alone !
W e might exclaim, “ Unhappy Paul, thou hadst no Luther nor
Calvin nor Wesley to glory in, or whose name thou couldst
bear in addition to that of Christ !” But were such the feelings
of Paul ? . He might himself have been a Luther, a Calvin,&a
Wesley, his name the watchword of a sect; but the noble-
minded Paul would glory only in Christ. He would not allow
the adoption of any sectarian name in the church. Sectarian
names and party divisions he denounced as carnal. “ There-
foie (said he) u let no man glory in men ; for they are all
yours (they are all the property of the whole church), whether
Paul or Apollos or Cephas,” (and we may add Luther and
Calvin and Wesley) : all are yours, and ye are Christ’s, and
Christ is God’s. So then (ovzcog) let a man consider us (me
and Apollos, etc.) as ministers of Christ and stewards of the
mysteries of God (but not as leaders of parties). ”J He would

* Luther’s Deutsche Werke, B. 14. S. 422. f Ibid. S. 490.

X 1 Cor. 3:21—4: J.

Dr. Schmucker' $ Appeal.

have all believers called Christians and only Christians. All
that this name implied he wished to be, and neither more nor
less. Happy day ! when this spirit shall return to the church !
Then she may celebrate a jubilee, a glorious jubilee ; and it will
literally be not a centennial, but a millennial jubilee. The last
thousand years will have witnessed but one ! !

Nor would we pass in silence a collateral evil, resulting from
the almost exclusive cultivation of sectarian literature. As this
literature is all of a date subsequent to the Reformation, its pe¬
rusal impresses the Protestant laity with the modern origin of
our churches ; and leaves them in almost total darkness as to
our real identity with the church of the earlier ages. Hence
our people are unduly impressed by the Romish claim to supe¬
rior antiquity, and an advantage is conceded to papists of which
they cunningly avail themselves. If Protestants selected their
literature promiscuously from among the different sects accord¬
ing to the intrinsic merits of the writers, it would tend much to
promote actual unity and mutual esteem among themselves ;
and if, both in their literature and creeds, they gave greater pro¬
minence to their identity with the primitive church, they would
make the laity feel their connexion with the Christians of the
earlier centuries, and thus nullify the most popular argument by
which papists proselyte Protestant members.

6. Another source of sectarian discord, is ecclesiastical pride.
As long as man is sanctified but in part, this element of native
depravity will more or less influence the disciples of Christ ;
will seek and often find fuel even in the sanctuary of God.
Each sect is naturally disposed to regard its institutions and its
ministers as the most learned and able, or its members as
most genteel, or its rites most fashionable, its churches most
splendid, or its members the most pious, its pales as far the best
road to heaven. Ministers are tempted to be influenced by the
fact, that they regard their churches as presenting the most con¬
spicuous theatre for the display of their talents, or holding out
the fairest prospects of advancement ; their audiences as the
most intelligent, their support as the most liberal, or as best se¬
cured against contingencies. Hence they are in danger of
looking on their less favored neighbors with secret disrespect ;
of cherishing ecclesiastical pride, and having their judgment
warped by it. We do not assert that all ministers or laymen
yield to the influence of this temptation, yet happy is that man,
who, on an impartial examination of his feelings as in the pre-

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal- 59

sence of God, stands fully acquitted by his own conscience l
That caution here is not superfluous, was evidently the opinion
of the great apostle of the gentiles, who having himself repelled
all sectarian honors, gives double force to his admonition :

“ These things, brethren, I have figuratively transferred (applied)
to myself and to A polios, for your sakes, that ye might learn
by us not to esteem ministers (see v. 1.) above what is writ¬
ten (in v. 1. and ch. 3: 5 — 9, 21.) that no one of you may, on
account of one (minister), be puffed up against another!”

7. The last source of sectarian discord to be noticed is;
conflict of pecuniary interest between neighbouring ministers 4
and churches. This principle applies to the feelings of the
minister in regard to his salary, which depends in some mea¬
sure on the increase of his church. In reference to laymen, it
applies to their raising funds for all ecclesiastical purposes..
The more their church prospers and receives additions, the
more will their pecuniary liabilities be divided, the more easily
will the burden rest on their shoulders. Hence both pastors
and people are tempted to envy and jealousy towards their
Christian neighbors of other denominations, because the success
of either party, is more or less at the expense of the other.
The success of either, diminishes the amount of materials for
the others to act on, and this is a matter of serious moment to
the parties especially in smaller towns and villages, where often
twice as many ministers are stationed as are needed, or can be
supported.

From this difficulty the primitive church was almost entirely
exempt. In the earlier ages it was customary to appoint, that
is, ordain several elders, or as we now term them ministers, in
every church, who divided the labor between them, and gen¬
erally continued to prosecute their secular business, thus in a
great measure supporting themselves ; whilst it was customary
from the beginning to provide for those who went abroad as
missionaries , and travelled from place to place.* The only fund
of the church, was that which arose from the voluntary offer¬
ings of the members on each Lord’s day. This fund however
was considerable ; and it was probably as a stimulus to liberali¬
ty, that the custom of reading off the names of the contributors
was introduced ; though its professed design was to commend
them to the special prayers of the church.f In the third cen-

* Fuch’s Bibliothek der Kirchenversarmnlungen, Vol. I. p. 72, 7&

f Ibid. Vol. I. p. 72.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

tury, when the duties of ministers had become so greatly multi¬
plied as to require their entire time, they were in some coun¬
tries prohibited from following any secular profession, as we
learn from Cyprian,* and other sources. The sixth of the
Apostolic Canons reads thus :

Canon 6. Neither a bishop, presbyter nor deacon shall en¬
gage in secular employment, on pain of being deposed from of¬
fice .

And the fortieth canon is as follows :

Canon 40. We ordain that the bishop shall have the control
of the congregational property. For as the precious souls of
men are committed to his care, much more ought he to have the
control of the church property , that he may freely arrange ev¬
ery thing, that he may aid the poor through the instrument ali-
ty of the presbyters and deacons, in the fear of God and in all
honesty. He shall also be permitted to apply a portion of it
to his own indispensable wants, if he needs it, as also for
strange Christians who have come as guests ; and in these ca¬
ses it is not necessary to suffer any want {fifrcday^aveiv de xou
aviov tcnv deovvwv, tiye deeizo, fig rag dvuyy.uiug auzco ygsiag
y.at zwv fnv^fvovyfvwv afieXquuv, cJg v.ara yqdfva TQonov avrovg
VOZfQflO&ai).

The fifty-eighth canon likewise relates to this subject :

Canon 58. If a bishop refuses to supply the indispensable
wants of a poor minister (namely from the church funds) he
shall be set aside; and if he still refuses to do it, let him be
deposed as a murderer of his brethren .f

At the Synod of Elvira, (in Spain, near the site of the pre¬
sent Granada,) the date of which is not entirely certain, though
fixed with probability about the year 313, a restriction was im¬
posed on ministers, by the eighteenth canon, which however
presupposes that in Spain the secular business of ministers was
not yet entirely prohibited.

Canon 18. Bishops, elders and deacons shall not leave their
place of residence for the sake of trade, nor traverse the pro¬
vinces for the purposes of attending profitable fairs. They
may, for the purpose of gaining a subsistence , send a son, or

* Cypriani ep. 66. to the church at Furnae. Neander, sup. cit. p
305. v

f Roessler’s Bibliothek der Kirchenvater, Vol. 4. p. 232, 242, 248.

Dr. Schmucker's Appeal.

or Jreedman, or hireling , or friend , or cmt/ one else ; and if
they ivish to pursue any secular business, let it be within their
province A

In accordance with these original documents, is the opinion
of Dr. Neander, who is confessedly the most learned writer of
the present age, on the ancient history of the church. “ It is
almost certain (says he) that in the beginning, those who held
offices in the church, continued to pursue their secular business,
and thereby supported their families, as they had previously
done. The congregations, which consisted chiefly of the poor,
were scarcely able to provide for the support of their ministers
(presbyters) and deacons, especially as at that time many other
demands were made on the congregational treasury, such as for
the support of the destitute widows, of the poor, of the sick,
and of orphans. And it may be that the ministers often be¬
longed to the wealthiest members of the church, and indeed
this must often have been the case, as their office required a
degree of previous cultivation of mind and manners, which
could more frequently be found among persons in the higher or
middle walks of life, than among the lower classes of society,
[f it was necessary that the presbyters or bishops, as they were
in all respects to be an example to the flock, should also have
been distinguished among the Christians for their hospitality
(1 Tim. 3: 2), they must have belonged to those in easy cir¬
cumstances, of whom the number was not large, — and how
could such persons have permitted themselves to be supported
by the savings of their more needy brethren ! The apostle
Paul does indeed declare, that the missionaries who went abroad
to publish the gospel, are entitled to a support from those for
whose spiritual benefit they labor, but we cannot hence infer
the same in regard to the officers of individual congregations.
The former could not well unite their secular profession with
the duties of their spiritual calling, although to the self-denial
of Paul even this was possible. But the latter could at first
easily combine their secular profession with their ecclesiastical
office. Nor was there any thing offensive in such a union ac-

* Ibid. Vol. 4. p. 280, 281. Episcopi, Presbyteri et Diacones de
locis suis liegotiandi causa non discedant ; nec circumeuntes provin¬
ces quaestuosas nundinas sectentur. Sane ad victual sibi conquiren-
dum aut filium, aut libertum, ant mercenarium, aut amicum, aut quem-
libet mittant, et si voluerint negotiari, intra provinciam negotientur.

Dr. Schmuckers Appeal.

cording to the primitive views of the Christians ; for they were
convinced, that every earthly calling also could be sanctified by
the Christian design for which it is pursued, and they knew that
even an apostle followed a secular business whilst engaged in
publishing the gospel. But when the congregations became
larger, and the duties of the church officers more numerous,
when the duty of teaching was chiefly confined to the ministers,
as the office ol the ministers required all their time and exer¬
tions il they would perform them faithfully ; it was often no
longer possible for them to provide for their own support, and
the congregations having become larger, contained more wealth,
and were now able to support them. The salary of the minis¬
ters was paid out ol the congregational treasury, which was
supplied by a voluntary contribution from each member at the
meeting for public worship on every Lord’s day, or as in North¬
ern Africa, on the first Sunday of each month. Ministers were
now urged to abstain from worldly business ; and in the third
century they were absolutely prohibited from all such employ¬
ment, even from the duties of a guardian. This regulation was
doubtless founded on a very good reason, and was intended for
the very salutary purpose of preventing the clergy from forget¬
ting their sacred calling amid their worldly engagements ; for
we see from the work ol Cyprian, de lapsis, that during the
long continued peace, a worldly spirit had already crept in
among the bishops, and that, immersed in secular business,
they neglected their spiritual duties and the welfare of their
churches.”*

Such then are the undoubted facts in the case. In the be¬
ginning there was not, there could not be any conflict of pecu¬
niary interest between adjoining ministers and congregations.
But it is evident, that even after it became necessary for minis¬
ters to relinquish their secular business and be supported by
their congregations which they had a clear right to demand as
soon as the congregations were large enough to support them,
as Paul distinctly teaches in 1 Cor. ix. scarcely any more diffi¬
culty could arise ; because, there being but one denomination of
Christians, there could not be several conflicting churches aim¬
ing to occupy the same ground, and the cases would be rare in
which more ministers would be stationed in one place, than the
population required and could support.

* Neander’s Allgemeine Geschicht© der christlichen Religion und
Kirche, Vo). I. p. 303, 304, 305.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

How great the difficulties are, which now arise from this
source is well known. Yet they might be greatly diminished
by the plan of union hereafter proposed, if, a) the confederated
denominations would resolve not to send into any neighbor¬
hood more ministers than would constitute a reasonable supply,
say one to every thousand souls, b) Let all the members of
the confederated churches, resident in such bounds unite in sup¬
porting one and the same minister. And c) if the whole con¬
federated population of such a district is unable to furnish an
adequate support for a minister, let application be made to the
Home Missionary Society for aid. Thus would many labor¬
ers be spared for destitute portions of our land and of our globe,
brotherly love would more abound in the church at home, and
unity of spirit be greatly promoted.

CHAPTER IV.

Remedy for these evils , or plan for the restoration of Catholic

Union on Apostolic Principles.

Any plan of union, in order to possess a claim to the atten¬
tion of the different Christian denominations generally, must be
based on apostolic principles, must be accordant with the spirit
and principles of the New' Testament, or deducible from them.
It must leave untouched the unalienable rights and obligations of
Christians, and therefore must possess the following attributes :

1. It must require of no one the renunciation of any doctrine
or opinion believed by him to be scriptural or true.

2. It must concede to each denomination or branch of the
church of Christ, the right to retain its own organization, or to
alter or amend it at option, leaving every thing relative to gov¬
ernment, discipline, and worship, to be managed by each de¬
nomination according to its own views for the time being. The
principle of ecclesiastical associations is scriptural ; the mode of
its application and the extent of its use, are not decided by the
sacred volume, and therefore are just matter for private judg¬
ment and progressive experience.

3. It must dissuade no one from discussing fundamentals and
non-fundamentals in the spirit ofehristian love, and amicably show¬
ing why he believes some non-fundamental opinions held by any

Dr. Schmucker^ s Appeal.

of his brethren to be incorrect. — Controversies might even exist
among the confederated brethren, under the influence of scriptural
union ; but they would be divested of most of their bitterness,
because the points at issue would confessedly be lion-funda¬
mental , having little or no perceptible influence on Christian
practice, involving no pecuniary loss by ejection from a pastoral
relation, and menacing no ecclesiastical disabilities.

4. The plan must be applicable to all the orthodox Christian
denominations, to all that are regarded as portions of Christ’s
visible church on earth. It must embrace all whom the apos¬
tles and primitive Christians would have admitted to the one
catholic or universal church ; all whom God has owned by the
influence of his Spirit and grace. Upon this ground James,
Peter, and John admitted Paul who had formerly been a perse¬
cutor of the brethren, and “gave to him the right hand of fel¬
lowship.”* The Saviour never enjoined on men the duty of
fixing the terms of communion in his church. This he has
himself done in his word by precept and by the apostolic exam¬
ple ; and we are treading on forbidden ground when we sepa¬
rate those whom God by his grace and Spirit hath joined to¬
gether. This js indeed not the design of the different denomi¬
nations, but is it not too true, that it is virtually the result of the
present state of sectarian division ?

Having now considered the character of primitive unity, and
the causes of discord in the different branches of the Protestant
church ; let us take our stand on the high ground of apostolic
principles, and from that elevated post survey the divided heri¬
tage of the Saviour, and inquire how may the spirit, and, as far
as possible, the form of primitive unity be restored ? And may
that blessed Saviour, who promised wisdom from above to them
that ask it, to lead them into all necessary truth, grant us the
tuition of his Spirit to guide and bless this humble effort for the
accomplishment of his own fervent prayer in behalf of his disci¬
ples : “ That they all may be one ; as thou, Father, art in

me, and I in thee.”

I. Some few advocates of union have proposed, that all others
should abandon their systems and peculiarities, and unite with
them by conforming in all things to their views and practice.

* Gal. 2: 9: When James, Cephas and John, perceived the grace
that was given unto me, they gave to me and Barnabas the right hand
of fellowship.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

As this method violates the unalienable rights and obligations
of Christians, by requiring the abandonment of what they be¬
lieve truth, and the practice of what they consider error, it can¬
not be regarded as judicious, or as promising any success. It
would, moreover, betray extreme weakness for any one Christian
sect at this late day, to calculate on the universal adoption of its
peculiarities by all others. Better, far better will it be, that all
endeavor to forget sectarian differences, and cooperate for the
publication of the Gospel to the 600,000,000 of perishing
heathen, with a degree of ardor and cordiality, which will make
us wear the appearance of one church.

II. It has been proposed, that each denomination should re¬
nounce its standards of doctrine and government and worship,
and then all unite in one new, short confession, embracing only
those doctrines held in common by all, and establishing such a
system of government, as all could conscientiously adopt ; whilst
entire liberty and privilege of diversity should be enjoyedffiy all
on every point not determined by the new standards.

This plan is liberal in its principles, violates none of the un¬
alienable rights and obligations of Christians, and therefore pos¬
sesses claims of the highest order. It lacks but one attribute of
a proper union for Christians, on an apostolic basis. The apos¬
tles and primitive churches maintained unity with all whom they
acknowledged as Christians ; but this plan, we fear, is not ap¬
plicable to all orthodox Christian denominations. It would,
promise a union of the Lutherans, the Congregationalists, the
Presbyterians, the German Reformed, the Dutch Reformed,
the Baptists, and, in short, of all those orthodox denominations,
which hold parity of ministers. The Moravians, or United
Brethren also could unite so far as doctrine is concerned, for as
they adopt and have always held the Augsburg Confession,
there would be no difficulty. The same is true so far as doc¬
trine is concerned, of the Episcopal church, the Methodist and
all other churches which practise diocesan episcopacy in our
land. But the writer is unable to perceive how these denomi¬
nations could all unite on any middle ground of church govern¬
ment. We must either have diocesan bishops or practise min¬
isterial parity ; and any plan, constructed on the principle of
uniformity, must adopt either the one or the other, and could not
enjoin both. But these churches are as orthodox and pious as
any others,, and God has as distinctly owned them as his own *

JDt. Schmucker’s Appeal.

so that we should feel criminal in virtually pronouncing that un¬
clean which God has sanctified, were we to advocate a plan of
union, which would exclude either the friends of ministerial
parity or imparity. But if this plan were even feasible, its adop¬
tion would probably not result in much good ; as it would col¬
lect into one body for religious worship, those whose modes
and habits of worship are so materially diverse as to justify the
anticipation of but little harmony or edification.

HI* Our own plan, which appears to us more accordant with
the requisite attributes ol a plan for Christian union on apostolic
principles, more feasible, and more safe, is embraced in the fol¬
lowing features :

First Feature. The several Christian denominations shall
retain each its own present ecclesiastical organization, govern¬
ment, discipline, and mode of worship. It is conceded by the great
body of Christians, that the Scriptures do not determine all the par¬
ticulars of any system of church government, but leave the mat¬
ter, excepting some important outlines, to the conscientious judg¬
ment and experience of the church in every age, and under
every form of civil government ; and the few who think they
find their entire system of government in Scripture, do not re¬
gard it as so essential as to lead them to deny the Christian
character of others. Hence every church has an equal right
deliberately to test her forms of ecclesiastical organization by
experience ; and diversity of practice on this point, ought nei¬
ther to preclude ecclesiastical communion, nor impede substan¬
tial union among the parties. This principle is distinctly avow¬
ed in the mother symbol of Protestantism, the Augsburg Con¬
fession : “ For the true unity of the church (say the confessors)
nothing more is required than agreement concerning the doc¬
trines of the Gospel, and the administration of the sacraments.
Nor is it necessary, that the same human traditions, that is, rites
and ceremonies instituted by men, should be everywhere ob¬
served.” * It is indeed true, that whilst many churches have
no connection whatever with each other even though contig¬
uous ; others are united together more closely than any of the
apostolic churches were. But the questions whether and when
they shall relax these sectarian bonds, should be left to their
own decision. The evils of too close a union in extended bodies
are beginning to be extensively felt; and if through the influ¬
ence of the impartial investigation, fostered by the kind of union

* Augsburg Confession, Art. VII.

Dr. Schmuclcer’s Appeal.

proposed in this Appeal, some churches should relinquish any
leatures of their ecclesiastical organization, as is entirely possi¬
ble ; they have full liberty to reform themselves, and, under the
progressive light of God’s providence, gradually, to assume
towards each other and towards the great body of the Protes¬
tant church, whatever relation and organization appear to them
best adapted to the millennial age. But the attempt, to unite
all the churches in our land under the control of one judicatory
of supervision, jurisdiction, and appeal, appears to the writer
neither desirable nor safe. It would be a distinct approxima¬
tion to a new hierarchy. Very extensive courts are too cum¬
bersome for efficient action, business is retarded, power tends to
accumulation, the rights of conscience are in danger of being
infringed either by statute, or by an accumulated moral influ¬
ence which crushes all that refuses to submit to its dictation.

Moreover, so long as men entertain materially different views
of government and modes of worship, it cannot be conducive to
harmony or edification, to press them to unite on any one form..
The attempt to promote union by the immediate abandonment
of existing organizations, would seem to be inexpedient also for
another reason. Experience proves it dangerous suddenly to
unsettle the long established habits of the community ; lest
being released from the old, they fail generally to settle down
with firmness on any thing new that is better. But the first
feature of our plan, by stipulating that each denomination shall
retain its organization as long as it shall see fit, provides against
this danger, and leaves each denomination as an independent
community to watch the effects of the other features hereafter
proposed, and decide for itself how far to accede to the terms
of union, and how long to adhere to them. It also provides for
the indulgence of existing diversities and preferences so long as
they shall continue ; whilst the other features will gradually
tend to diminish them ; thus inviting external uniformity no
faster than unity of spirit and of views has fully prepared the way.
And, finally, this feature would leave untouched the relations,
government and charters of the various religious, theological
and benevolent institutions, whilst the general plan of union
would promote unity of spirit and efficient cooperation among
them all, for accelerating the grand enterprise of the Christian
church, to preach the gospel to every rational creature.

Second Feature. Let each of the confederated denomina¬
tions formally resolve for itself \ not to discipline any member or

Dr. Schmucked s Appeal.

minister , for holding a doctrine believed by any other denomina¬
tion whose Christian character they acknowledge , provided his
deportment be unexceptionable , and he conform to the rules of
government , discipline and worship adopted by said denomina¬
tion. This would be actually retaining in good standing all,
whom the apostles would have retained. And yet, such is the
influence of habit and long familiarity with sectarian or^aniza-
tions, that to some this feature of our plan will appear altogeth¬
er impracticable. Rut if it is so in any portion of the church,
it must be from want of Christian charity , of that grace enjoined
by the apostle, “ not to judge a brother,” (Romans xiv.),
lrom indisposition or inability to obey the apostolic precept,
to receive those who are weak in the faith, but not to doubt¬
ful disputation. If then it be only our want of charity which
disqualifies us for the adoption of this feature of union, let
us not assail it ; but set about reforming ourselves, and en-
larging our hearts, until they cordially respond to the injunction
of the great apostle ol the Gentiles, to receive those who are
weak (in our judgment, defective,) in the faith. It is true, the
apostle Peter denounced some as false teachers, and Paul com¬
manded the excommunication of others ; but what were the
crimes or heresies of which these persons were convicted ? If
they were such as all the orthodox churches would unite in re¬
garding an ample ground of excommunication, and if in no in¬
stance the apostles enjoined discipline, for a point which any
orthodox denomination would regard as insufficient, then the
apostolic example affords full sanction for our plan, because this
is exactly the ground which it assumes, and by its provisions
all would be excluded whom the apostles would reject ; and is
not that enough ? As to false doctrine, we find Peter denounc¬
ing those as false teachers who “ bring in damnable heresies
(ociyeosig ccTicuktiag, destructive heresies or divisions), denying
even the Lord that bought them.”1 And, it is scarcely neces¬
sary to say, that such errorists would unhesitatingly be excluded
by the terms of the proposed union, as they also were from the
churches of the earlier centuries by the apostles’ creed. Peter
denounced Simon Magus as “ having neither part nor lot in
this matter,” but It was for attempting to bribe the apostles and
believing that the miraculous gifts of God could be purchased
with money.2 The apostle Paul wishes the Galatians to cut

1 2 Pet 2: 1.

3 Acts 8: 9, 10.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

off certain persons, 1 but they were guilty of having denied the
doctrine of salvation by grace on account of the merits of Christ,
they made “ Christ of no effect,” 2 maintaining (probably, not
by inference of others) that men must be ‘‘justified by the
law ;” 3 thus “ preaching another gospel,”4 and denying a fun¬
damental doctrine, held by all the orthodox denominations, that
salvation is by grace, through the merits of Christ. And in his
first epistle to Timothy, the same apostle predicts, that “ in after¬
times some shall depart , (or rather, apostatize dnooirioovzcu) from
the faith. And what was it in them which he denounced as apos¬
tasy from the faith ? He himself informs us, that it was giving heed
to seducing spirits,” and believing the doctrines concerning (not
devils, but d'cuyovuov demons, or) inferior deities such as worship¬
ped heroes or saints, speaking lies in hypocrisy, “ having their
conscience seared,” “ forbidding to marry and commanding to
abstain from meats.” Here again it will be conceded, that any
church deserving the name of orthodox, would not hesitate to
exclude any one who should be chargeable with the counts
summed up by the apostle, and so mournfully applicable to the
Romish church. And, finally, the beloved apostle John warns
his readers against some false teachers, whom he styles anti¬
christs. But what does he represent them as teaching ? “ Who
is the liar, but he who denieth that Jesus is the Christ (the
Messiah promised in the Old Testament) ? He is the anti¬
christ, that denieth the Father and the Son.” 5 And “ many
deceivers are entered into the world, who do not confess that
Jesus Christ came into the world , this is a deceiver and an an¬
tichrist.”6 Now these, if we mistake not, are all the instances
in which the apostles either expressly enjoined excommunica¬
tion for error in doctrine, or denounced the errorists in language
implying, that they ought to be regarded, not as erring breth¬
ren, but as apostates from Christianity ; and, as not one of
these errors is held by any of the so-called orthodox churches,
as every one of them is denounced by them, the plan we pro¬
pose would reach them all, and thus the rigor of discipline be
quite as great as the apostles enjoined.

In addition to these errors in doctrine, the apostle has enu¬
merated a list of practical abuses, as proper causes of ecclesias¬
tical discipline, lest a little leaven of sin should corrupt the

1 Gal. 5:12. 2 5: 4. 3 5:4. 4 1:6, 8, 9.

5 1 John 2: 22. 6 2 John v. 7.

Dr. Schmucker's Appeal.

whole church, namely incest,1 fornication, dishonesty in the pur¬
suit of wealth, idolatry, railing, drunkenness and extortion. To
this class also belong the apostle’s injunction : “ A man that is
a schismatic (aiyinxov, a maker of divisions or sects or parties
in the church),2 after the first and second admonition reject,”
and that of the Saviour to exclude one who will not hear the
church. let as these are not doctrinal aberrations, they are
not affected by the plan ol union, since its first feature provides
that each denomination shall retain its rules of government, dis¬
cipline and worship.

And is there no passage in Scripture justifying discipline for
doctrinal errors of a minor grade ? The apostle does indeed
command us u earnestly to contend for the faith once delivered
to the saints.” Yet, as he does not specify how we ought to
contend, whether by preaching, or writing, or ecclesiastical dis¬
cipline, it is uncertain whether discipline was meant. And ad¬
mitting that he also intended discipline, it seems reasonable,
that it should be employed only in defence of those doctrines
which were certainly delivered to the saints ; and he could not
have meant that some saints should turn their brethren out of
the church, for holding sentiments which others whom they
acknowledged to be saints, and who remained in the church,
believed to be a part of the gospel of Christ. If excommuni¬
cation were one of the appointed means for ascertaining the
truth, it might with propriety be applied in doubtful cases. But
the New Testament represents it as a penalty, to be inflicted on
those who have so criminally and materially forsaken the path
of truth or of virtue, as to be unworthy of the Christian name.
Hence it ought not to be applied in reference to points on which
Christians of equal piety, talent, and grace, are in debate, wheth¬
er they belong to the gospel of Christ or not.

That we are not allowed in regard to matters disputed among
Christians, to act as if we were certainly right, is evident from
the express injunctions of the apostles to the contrary. We are

1 1 Cor. 5: 1 1.

This version after much examination seems to the writer the true
one. It is sustained by three-fourths of the best critics, such as Mi-
chaelis, Schleusner, Wahl, De Wette,Stolrz, Heumann, Van Ess, Sei¬
ler, etc. But should we even adopt the common version, the passage
is inapplicable, as the context does not decide what errors the apos¬
tle considered heresies. . r

3 Matt. 18: 17.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

commanded to “ receive him that is weak in the faith (him who,
in our judgment, is in error on some points) ; but not to doubt¬
ful disputations (not for th'e purpose of disputing about his scru¬
ples, or deciding on them).1 Again, “ Let every one be fully
persuaded in his own mind.” Again, “ Why dost thou judge
(condemn) thy brother ? or why dost thou set at nought thy
brother? for we shall all stand before the judgment-seat of
Christ.2 Paul warns Timothy against “ doting about questions
and strifes of words, whereof come envy, strifes, railings, evil
surmisings (unjust suspicions), perverse disputings of men of
corrupt minds,” etc.3 Again, “ Of these things put them in
remembrance, charging them before the Lord, that they strive
not about words to no profit, but to the subverting of the hear¬
ers.” And again, “ Follow charity, peace, with them that call
on the Lord out of a pure heart ; But foolish and ( uncudeuovg )
untaught questions ( which had not been decided by the apos¬
tles) avoid, knowing that they do gender strifes.”4

We are therefore commanded on the one hand to “ cut off
those antichrists who preach another gospel,” and on the other,
not to judge (pass sentence, or condemn) him whom, on the
whole, we regard as a brother ; but to receive him and to avoid
foolish and untaught questions , questions not clearly deci¬
ded in Scripture. If we unite these two precepts into one,
they will be equivalent, we think, to the general command to
discipline men for denying what is certainly an essential part of
the gospel of Christ, but not for any doctrine about which ac¬
knowledged Christians differ, and which is therefore doubtful.
For we suppose the following rule will be found a fair, safe and
tangible one : That all those doctrines which the great body of
all Christians whom God has owned by his grace and Spirit ,
and who have free access to the Scriptures , agree in finding in
them , are certainly taught there ; and all those points on which
they differ are less certain , are doubtful. This rule is based
on the dictates of common sense, that if the Scriptures are a
revelation from God to man, they must on all points necessary
to salvation, be intelligible to all impartial and competent inqui¬
rers ; and that true Christians, who are engaged in daily efforts
to serve God, and who bear in their hearts and exhibit in their
lives, the evidences of God’s grace and Spirit, are the most sin-

1 Rom. 14: 1.

4 2 Tim. 2: 14, 23.

2 14: 5—10

3 1 Tim. 6: 4.

Dr. Schmucker's Appeal.

cere, impartial and competent inquirers into his word. Now
we suppose, that the great mass of true Christians in our land
will he com pi en ended not in any one sect, but in the aggregate
of all the orthodox protestant denominations.

Again, the judgment of each denomination, as to the most im-
poitant points ol doctrine taught in the Scriptures is confessedly
set forth by the creed which it professes. Hence those doc¬
trines which are taught in common by the creeds of all the so-
called oithodox Protestant denominations, and as far as thus
unitedly taught, may be safely regarded as clearly revealed in the
book of God. W e limit the rule to Protestant denominations, be¬
cause in the papal sect, the mass of the people have not access
to the word ol God, and believe the doctrines of their creed
simply because their church teaches them. It is limited to
oithodox denominations, because there are unhappily some in
our land professing to receive the Scriptures, but in reality re¬
jecting their divine inspiration, and, as we are constrained to
believe, denying the Lord that bought them, and preaching
another Christ. Let it not be supposed, that this rule resem¬
bles that of the Romanists, who explain the Scriptures accord¬
ing to the pretended unanimous consent of the fathers ; for
those fathers instead of constituting the great mass or majority
of believers in any age, were not one in a million. Nor could
the mass of believers in any age fall under our rule, unless they
had free and uncontrolled access to the Scriptures, either in the
original, if its languages were vernacular to them, or in a faith¬
ful version. It could therefore apply only to the Protestant
chinches, and to the churches of the first few centuries before
ecclesiastical enactments interfered with the free unbiassed
use of the Scriptures. And concerning the opinions of the mass
of believers in the earlier centuries, we know next to nothing,
except that they received the so-called Apostles5 creed.

We aie^ thus conducted, by Scripture and reason, to the
aaoption ol the second feature of the proposed catholic union,
namely, not to discipline a brother , whose deportment is un¬
exceptionable, and who conforms to our existing regulations of
government, discipline and, worship, for holding a doctrine be¬
lieved by any acknowledged: orthodox denomination. This
practice, so far as the Scriptures enable us to judge, accords
with that of the apostolic churches ; it certainly agrees with the
practice of the church in the first four centuries after the apos¬
tles, for they disciplined only for the denial of a doctrine taught

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

in the Apostles’, and afterwards in the Nicene creed, all of
which are received by every orthodox denomination. Not one
of the distinguishing points on which Protestants differ, is deter¬
mined in either the Apostles’ or the Nicene creed, and therefore
it is indisputable, that any one of these denominations would
have been received and retained (not disciplined) by all other
portions of the so-called universal (catholic) church.

And why ought not the different branches of the Protestant
church to adopt this rule ? That persons differing on these dis¬
puted doctrinal points, but agreeing in their views of church
government, discipline and mode of worship, can live harmo¬
niously in the same church, and cooperate cordially in the duties
and privileges of church members, is not a matter of mere spec¬
ulative conjecture. It is a notorious fact that in every denomi¬
nation there are not a few among the pious laity, living and cor¬
dially cooperating in the same church, who differ from each
other, as much as the creeds of the several denominations differ.

* The writer has personally known many instances of this kind in
the Lutheran, Presbyterian and Episcopal churches, and has no
doubt that cases equally frequent occur in the other denomina¬
tions. If this can be done by pious laymen, there is no reason
why pious ministers could not live together in the same unity of
spirit, notwithstanding minor differences in doctrinal views ; es¬
pecially if they were taught in their theological course, them¬
selves to regard as less important the several points which
separate the orthodox churches, and in their public exercises to
lay the more stress on the cardinal doctrines of the Christian
scheme. It is well known that in the Episcopal church minis¬
ters of different doctrinal views exist and labor in friendship.
“ Perhaps” (says the liberal and amiable author of ‘ Hints on
Catholic Union,’1) “ there is not a shade or variety of theological
opinion, within the circle of evangelical truth, that has not had
an advocate among the divines of the Church of England.” In
the Presbyterian church also a large number of ministers have
believed in general atonement, whilst others, agreeably to their
Confession, consider the atonement as limited. Yet these
brethren have generally lived together and cooperated in peace
until recently. At present, for reasons, into which our design
does not urge us to inquire, these differing brethren in the Pres¬
byterian church are engaged in warm disputations, whilst among

1 See Hints on Catholic Union, by a Presbyter of t lie Protestant
Episcopal Church, p. 46. New York, 1836.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

our Episcopal brethren; the same differences still exist and are
regarded with Christian charity. And why should a Presbyte¬
rian, who regards a dissentient Episcopalian or a Methodist as a
brother, condemn the member ofhis ownchurcb or ministry, who
holds similar views ? Why should any man regard that as heresy
in a Pi esbyterian, which in a Methodist or Episcopalian, is, accord¬
ing to his own judgment, consistent with Christian character, and
comports with a life of acknowledged piety and usefulness ? The
only conceivable difference is, that the one may be regarded as vi¬
olating the obligation of his creed, whilst the others do not violate
it. This is indeed highly important to the character of the indi¬
vidual. No man should teach a doctrine which he believes to be
inconsistent with the creed of his church, if he pledged himself
to uphold every individual doctrine contained in it, °and if his
promise was not, as some suppose it to be, a promise to receive
the confession as teaching the general system of truth revealed
in Scripture. If there be diversity of opinion as to the na¬
ture of the subscription to a creed, whether it binds to every in¬
dividual doctrine, or only to the system of truths contained in it *
this point ought doubtless to be first settled.1 Whilst it remains
under dispute, every attempt at discipline will be encumbered
by a double issue. The friends of liberal construction will un¬
dertake to prove, that they have not abandoned the creed
(meaning its general system of truth) ; whilst the advocates of
rigid construction will prove that they have not adhered to eve-

If hao been asserted on the authority of early records that the
principle of liberal construction was adopted near the origin of the
Pieshytei ian church in this country, and was practised on, and the
fact appears to be established by the testimony of President Davies
recently published in the “American Quarterly Register” for May
1837, p. 316. In an extract from his diary, during a visit to England
in behalf of Princeton College, under date March nineteenth, 1754, we
find the following reply given by Mr. Davies to Mr. Prior, who in-
cjuiied, whethei the Presbyterians in America would admit any per¬
son to the ministry, without his subscribing the Westminster Confes¬
sion . I replied that we allowed the candidate to mention his objec¬
tions against any article in the Confession, and the judicature judged
whether the articles objected against, were essential to Christianity ;
and if. they judged they were not, they would admit the candidate
notwithstanding his objections. He (Mr. Prior) seemed to think that

we were such rigid Calvinists that we would not admit an Arminian
to communion.”

Dr. Schmuckcr’s Appeal. 75

ry individual doctrine, and will expatiate on the guilt of viola¬
ting the obligation imposed by the confession.

Would it not be far better for both parties to inquire whether
they have a right from apostolic precept or example , to hind
either themselves or others to more than the fundamental truths
of Christian doctrine , and to as many points of government,
discipline and worship as are actually necessary to harmonious
cooperation ? If the views of this Appeal be correct, then sub¬
scription to transfundamental doctrinal creeds is always wrong,
and if wrong then it ceases to be binding so soon as its impro¬
priety is seen, and ought to be retracted, whilst the creed should
be reduced to fundamentals, or subscription be required only
“ to the fundamental doctrines of the Bible as contained in the
creed.” For, after the failure of extended creeds to produce
unanimity, and after their tendency to cause strife, and divide
the body of Christ, have become as certain as any other matter
ol historical record ; why should protestants continue to bind
either themselves, or others to them ? Especially, as such ex¬
tended creeds were unheard of in the days of the apostles, and
for hundreds of years after ? If the same word of God which
we now possess, when aided by the oral instruction and the
personal example of the apostles, could not produce entire una¬
nimity among the primitive Christians, how could it be expected
to effect more at the present time ? or, why should we require
greater unanimity than the primitive Christians did, as a term of
ecclesiastical communion ?

So long as there is the same diversity of talent, of mental
temperament, of habits of education, and of supposed interest,
such diversity will continue to exist. Nor ought it to be re¬
garded as necessarily criminal, or as inconsistent with Christian
fellowship and fidelity. Difference on non-essentials has no
perceptible influence on Christian character and practice. There
are differences in other departments of human knowledge, and
some even connected with religion, of equal magnitude, such as
the value of a death bed repentance, the mode of treating awak¬
ened sinners and of conducting revivals, etc., and yet, because
these points are not settled in the creed, men agree to differ on
them, their peace and harmonious cooperation are rarely dis¬
turbed for any length of time ; for as Luther justly remarked,
alia est Concordia fidei, alia charitatis. Such variety of opin¬
ions on non-fundamentals moreover, may even exert a salutary
tendency, may stimulate men to inquiry and peaceful discussion.

Dr. SchmucJcer’s Appeal.

thus keeping alive a healthful spirit of investigation, and pre¬
venting the indifference, which some have apprehended, might
result from the absence of extensive creeds.

Under the operation of this feature of union, full liberty of in¬
vestigation would be allowed within the bounds of fundamen¬
tals, without the danger of exclusion from house and home, or
pastoral charge. And, is it not reasonable to suspect that that
system which cannot trust itself to the full and unbiassed influ¬
ence of God’s word without the artificial aid of creeds, and
those peculiarities which need to be instilled into the youthful
mind more explicitly than the Bible teaches them, lest they be
lost, are erroneous, are not worth keeping; and that permitting
them to become obsolete, would only advance the unity of the
church ? Every disciple of Christ ought to be willing to see
the peculiarities of his own denomination cast into the crucible
of God’s word, and exposed to the unrestrained action of
Bible truth and Bible principles, in order that the truth of God
might thus be gradually developed in its full purity over the
whole church,, the breaches in Zion’s walls be healed, and one
peculiar people zealous of good works, be raised up to God.
The writer takes pleasure in being able to cite in support of his
position the opinion of that distinguished servant of God, Cal¬
vin, whose zeal against fundamental errorists will not be dispu¬
ted, but whose magnanimous liberality in reference to all but
fundamentals, appears to be but little known and still less ap¬
preciated. He even goes much further than our plan of union
proposes, and dissuades from schism, if a church neglect to dis¬
cipline for the grossest immoralities ; whilst our plan proposes, *
that in regard to government, discipline and mode of worship,
each one shall, as heretofore, connect himself with that branch
of the church, whose forms he believes best calculated to ad¬
vance the kingdom of the Redeemer. His language, in a let¬
ter to Farrel, is this: “I only contended for this, that they
should not create schism in any church , which , although very
corrupt in morals , and infected with strange doctrines, had
not entirely departed from that doctrine , on which Paul in¬
forms us the church of Christ is founded.” 1 And it was in

1 Hoc unum contendebam, ne schistnate scinJerent qualemcumque
ecclesiam : quae, utcu'nque esset corruptissima moribus, doctrinis
etiam oxoticis infecta, non tameii desciverit penitus ab ea doctrina qua
ecclesiam Christi fundari docet Paulus. Calv. Epist; Opp. § JX. p. 6.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

the same spirit of liberality that, as he himself informs us, he
subscribed the Augsburg or Lutheran Confession of faith, and
declares the points of difference between the Protestant church¬
es of his day, an insufficient cause for division.1

Third Feature. Let a creed be adopted including only
the doctrines held in common by all the orthodox Christian de¬
nominations, to be termed the Apostolic, Protestant Confession,
and let this same creed be used, by all denominations as the
term o f sacramental, ecclesiastical and ministerial communion.
To this each denomination would add its present Formularies
lor government, discipline and mode of worship, which it might
also change or amend from time to time, at its own option, and
in its own way. Each denomination might also use its former
creed as a book of instruction to whatever extent it saw proper.

The new creed should consist of two parts, a) The so-called
Apostles’ Creed.2 This little formulary has already been
adopted by four fifths of the Protestant church, by the Luther¬
ans in the different kingdoms of Europe, by the Episcopalians
in Europe and America, and by the Presbyterian church in this
country and probably also in Great Britain. The doctrines con¬
tained in it are embraced by every orthodox Protestant denomi¬
nation on earth. The adoption of this confession would estab¬
lish the doctrinal idenity of the confederated churches, with that
of the apostolic age, and of the first- four centuries ; which is a
matter of no small moment in the popular mind, and has been too
much neglected by Protestants, b) The second part should be
styled The United Protestant Confession , consisting of a selec¬
tion of those articles from the creeds of the prominent Protes¬
tant churches, in which all can agree, taking but one article on
each subject. As each of these churches acknowledge the
Christian character of the others, they all virtually admit, that the
creed of each church contains every thing essential on the doc¬
trine which any given article treats ; whilst each one believes
the creed of the other to contain minor errors on some points.
Now, if a selection can be made from all the creeds, which will
contain an article on every topic necessary to be introduced,
and yet not include any peculiar aspects of doctrines on which
the parties differ ; all denominations can evidently adopt it;
for they fully believe it ,• and have already acknowledged its

1 Epist. Schalingio, p. ] 13. Farello, p. 9. Mason’s Plea, p. 182, 183.

2 For a copy of this Creed, See page 121.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

Christian character by acknowledging as brethren those who
profess it. And if in order to complete such a creed, it would
be necessary to strike out some minor specifications from any
article of the existing creeds, in order to make it unexceptiona¬
ble to all parties, it is evident, that if nothing be added, all can
still adopt it, because the thing erased must be non-essential, as
it is one on which the confederated denominations differ.

It might be thought preferable by some, that a general coun¬
cil of the liberal-minded of all denominations should be called to
deliberate and form an original creed, covering the common
ground of the Protestant churches. But the testimony of ex¬
perience is not strongly in favor of the probable results of such
a convention. The whole field of theological topics would
have to be passed over, and the discussions entered on anew
which were passed through in the original formation of the sev¬
eral creeds. But by the far simpler plan here proposed, all
these difficulties are obviated. We have in the creed of each
denomination the result of its deliberations on all these points.
Taking these as the separate voices of the different churches,
we can by the principles above suggested, without difficulty
frame one creed, in which these voices shall unitedly be heard
proclaiming the common faith of all God’s people. As the
method proposed neither requires nor admits the composition of
a single original sentence, it will not be thought presumptuous in
the writer to attempt the application of his own rules. He has
accordingly formed such a Protestant confession, and appended
it to this Appeal.

These two parts would constitute the Apostolic, Protestant
Confession, required by the third feature of the proposed union.
The necessity and advantages of such a creed are evident.

1 . In order to keep heretics out of the church of God. The
duty of the church to exclude from her communion all who de¬
ny a fundamental doctrine, is admitted by all whose union is
contemplated in this plan. The apostle John expressly de¬
clares, “ If there come any unto you, and bring not this doc¬
trine,” (concerning the person of Christ, his real and not mere¬
ly feigned appearance in the flesh, as the gnostics asserted v. 7,
and 1 John 4: 2) receive him not into your house, neither bid
him God speed ; for he that biddeth him God speed is partaker
of his evil deeds.” 1 Now in order to bring men to the test,

} 2 John 10, 11.

Dr. Schmucker's Appeal.

whose fundamental soundness is suspected, it is absolutely ne¬
cessary1 to have a creed, either written or nuncupatory. But
whilst the principle of both is the same, a written creed has
many confessed advantages, and must necessarily constitute one
feature of our catholic union. And having thus enlarged the
ground of Christian forbearance, and confined the test to the
truths held in common by the orthodox churches, the utmost .
fidelity, and uncompromising spirit ought, and it is believed,
would be displayed, in the discipline and the excommunication
of any and every one, who denies a single doctrine actually
taught (not by inference) in the common creed. One princi¬
pal cause of laxity in executing discipline for doctrinal devia¬
tions from the different creeds, is undoubtedly the conviction,
derived from Scripture and reason, that the errors impugned are
too trifling to deserve discipline.

2. Such a creed is necessary , to give prominence to the great,
acknowledged truths of Christianity.

a) It has been doubted whether it is possible to give special
prominence to the grand doctrines of Christianity, without be¬
coming incoherent, or illogical, or vapid ; but its practicability
has often been demonstrated by facts, and ought therefore not
to be disputed. The writer many years ago, for some time
attended the preaching in the college chapel at Princeton,
where the professors of the Seminary and College alternately
officiated, all of whom were Calvinists ; yet he rarely heard a
sentiment conflicting with Lutheranism, and very rarely heard
the peculiarities of any sect introduced. The reason is, that
those excellent men, feeling that there were in that college,
students from all churches, were disposed to avoid unnecessary
offence, and yet they dwelt on the whole circle of undisputed
Christian doctrine. None who heard them would wish more

1 On this subject we would refer the reader to a “ Lecture on Creeds
and Confessions ,” by Rev. Dr. Miller of Princeton, containing many
very sound arguments in favor of their indispensable necessity to the
purity of the church. Whether the author would consent to the
modifications of the subject proposed in this Appeal, and confine the
doctrinal specifications of the creed to the common ground of Protes¬
tantism, we know not. Yet we are almost led to hope so from the
fact that all the cases adduced by him, to show the necessity of in¬
cluding non-fundamental matters in it, are cases belonging to gov¬
ernment, discipline or forms of worship, on which this plan proposes
that the sectarian standards may be retained.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

edifying, practical and profitable preaching. The volume of
Sermons and Addresses by Dr. Green, published soon after he
resigned the presidency of that institution, probably contains
some of the sermons then delivered by him. Of that volume,
a review was soon after published in the Christian Advocate’
and the writer distinctly recollects that the reviewer applauded
the unsectarian character of the discourses, and pronounced
them fiee from every thing to which Christians of any religious
denomination could with propriety object. The opinion of the
reviewer is cited because the writer has not read the work, and
therefore could not speak for himself. As indisputable speci¬
mens ol most excellent religious discussion confined to the un¬
disputed truths of Christianity, the common ground of the or¬
thodox churches, we may cite the publications of the American
Tract Society, and of the American Sunday School Union.
We might cite the Sermons of president Davies, Doddridge’s
Rise and Progress of Religion in the Soul, Burder’s Village
Sermons, and a number of other invaluable works as substan¬
tially confined to the grand, cardinal doctrines of Christianity.
And is it not a notorious fact that these and other similar publi¬
cations, are the works which have exerted the greatest influence
in producing the evangelical spirit and enterprise of the present
day ? Has not the blessed Saviour so signally blessed these
works, above all others of a sectarian character, as specially to
encourage their multiplication, not indeed so as to exclude oth¬
ers, but to give greater prominence to these ?

. k) Prominence ought to be given to these undisputed doc¬
trines, because they alone are certainly true. It has been
stated, that the aggregate of doctrines believed by the different
orthodox denominations may be divided into two classes, those
that are believed by them all, and those which are believed by
some and disbelieved by others. As men of equal piety, talent
and learning differ in respect to the latter, it is but just to sup¬
pose, that they are not so clearly revealed, and so definitely de¬
cided by Scripture, as those points which all agree in finding in
that sacied book. And as they are not so clearly revealed,
they cannot be essential to salvation, nor so certain in themselves,
if our knowledge of them is derived from revelation alone.

Moreover, no one Protestant sect is more numerous than all
the otheis together. The Lutheran church, which is by far the
largest, numbers according to the best authorities, a population
of about 30,000,000, whilst the whole body ol Protestants

Dr. Schmuclcer’s Appeal. 81

amounts to about 70,000,000. Hence, it is evident that the
peculiar, distinguishing doctrine of eacli sect, is disbelieved by
the majority of Protestants. If a disputed doctrine be common
to several of the larger sects, it then has a majority of all Pro¬
testants in its favor, and the probability of its biblical authority
is augmented. But those doctrines alone can be regarded as
certainly scriptural, which the great mass of all enlightened,
faithful, acknowledged Christians, who have free access to the
Bible, agree in finding in it. These undisputed doctrines alone,
we suppose, can be essential to salvation. For it is acknow¬
ledged by each sect, that persons denying its distinguishing
tenets, do exhibit evidence of piety, and will be saved. Hfcnce,
uniting this judgment of all the sects, Protestants do themselves
acknowledge, that persons will be saved in the denial of each
of the disputed doctrines. Hence, none but the undisputed
tenets are in fact judged by Protestants to be essential to sal¬
vation.

If these views be correct, all Christian teachers should accus¬
tom themselves to distinguish in their own minds between the
disputed and the undisputed doctrines of Christianity ; and in
their instructions they ought to give special prominence to the
latter. Who would think of adopting as text-book in a Col¬
lege, an author on Chemistry or Natural Philosophy, who intro¬
duced the various disputed opinions and theories' of a particular
class of men, which he regarded as true ; but did not distin¬
guish between these opinions, and those facts and principles
fully established and admitted by all ? Let us go one step
further, and suppose the peculiarities referred to be such as are
regarded as erroneous by the majority of chemists. Such a
book would by common consent be considered unsafe, and be
pronounced unphilosophical. Yet this is exactly the practice
ol all the different denominations. Their standards make no
distinction* between fundamental and nonfundamental doctrines,
between those which are certain, and not disputed by any
acknowledged Christian denomination, and those which, though
believed by some, are disputed and disbelieved by others. It
would certainly be conducive to Christian union and sound
Christian knowledge, if the distinction between disputed and
undisputed doctrines were distinctly made by including the latter
only in the public creed, leaving the former as subjects of ami¬
cable difference, and as occasions to exercise that forbearance
required by the apostle, in “ not judging our brother.’’ For if

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

we introduce these minor, disputed points into our test, and
then by virtue of it, drive out of our church all who in the least
differ from us, where is there any room for exercising Christian
forbearance to a “ brother who is weak in the faith.” There
will be none such left. We think the great apostle evidently
contemplated a different practice in the church.

c) Prominence should be • given to the undisputed truths of
Christianity, because they are the principal means which effect the
good accomplished by all the different sects, the principal means
of conversion, sanctification and salvation. Those points of secta¬
rian diversity which are true, (but which these are, no man can
determine with absolute certainty,) are doubtless more or less
connected with the more important truths, and have some influ¬
ence ; yet that their effect is comparatively very small, is mani¬
fest from the fact, that the Spirit’s operations have been ex¬
tended to all these several denominations. The errors of sects
have not destroyed the blessing vouchsafed on the undisputed
truths held by them, nor prevented them from being the vehi¬
cle of salvation to thousands. It is therefore not the peculiari¬
ties of the Lutherans, the Congregationalists, the Presbyterians,
the Episcopalians or Methodists, which do the good accom¬
plished by these churches, but that amount of truth held in
common by all. Hence this amount of common truth, ought
always to be distinguished from the “ doubtful disputations,”
and especially should be made prominent in the public exercises
of the sanctuary.

d) Such a creed would serve as a bond of union , between all
true Christians over the whole world. Doctrine is, in the
judgment of mankind, far more important than modes of gov¬
ernment. It is diversity of doctrine, even on minor points,
which has been adopted as the pretext for the major part of
the divisions and contentions among Christians. The adoption
of the same creed of fundamentals by all, without ahy altera¬
tion, would give prominence to their actual agreement in essen¬
tial doctrines, and thus operate as a bond of union among
Christians. Those denominations whose standards approxi¬
mate nearest in doctrine, do in reality cherish and exhibit more
fellow feeling than others who agree in form of government, but
differ materially in doctrine. This is exemplified in the inti¬
mate union and cooperation which have for a long time existed
between the Congregational, the Presbyterian, and the Low-
Dutch churches of our land. Yet there have always been in

Dr. Schmuclcer’s Appeal.

8 3

these cooperating and affiliated churches, many persons who
differed from each other, fully as much as the creeds of any two
orthodox churches do. The contentions in the church about
doctrine arise not so much from the existence of some diversity
on nonfundamentals, as from the fact, that the majority of exis¬
ting. creeds hold up this minor diversity to constant view, and
by ranking the minor and disputed points among the doctrines
which are the test of ecclesiastical communion, they perpetuate
dissension by conveying and cherishing the impression, that
these points are of vital moment. A fundamental creed would
exert directly the reverse influence, and give prominence to
those doctrines which are certainly true, and are not disputed
by any acknowleged Christian sect ; whilst it would imply the
minor importance of the disputed points, and teach men to ex¬
ercise charity in regard to them. This was the character of
the Apostles’ creed and the Nicene creed, which were the only
creeds used in the first three centuries of the church as tests ;
and their influence as a bond of union among Christians was
confessedly very great. Now it is a notorious fact, that all the
Protestant churches believe every sentence in these creeds, and
can subscribe them without renouncing a single opinion. So
far as the sacred records inform us, the apostles themselves did
not require half as much as is contained in these creeds. The
doctrine on which they laid most stress, is “ that Jesus is the
Son of God.” Every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has
come in the flesh is of God.” Whosoever confesseth that Je¬
sus Christ is the son of God, God dwelleth in him and he in
God.” Paul to the Romans1 expressly says : “ This is the
word of faith which we preach, that if thou shalt confess with
thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart, that
God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved.

Concord in fundamentals is the only doctrinal unity which
existed among primitive Christians, and which is necessary.
And in all probability, much greater unity in doctrine never will
exist in the church on earth, unless God miraculously produces
more. But there will be a much greater degree of charity and
forbearance, and consequent unity of spirit, in the days of mil¬
lennial glory, and the freedom of investigation and practice that
are advocated in this appeal and would be secured by the plan
of union proposed, will, it is believed, powerfully tend not only
to produce that unity of spirit, but also to bring about some

1 Romans 10: 8.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

greater unity in nonfundamental points, and perhaps in the
forms of government and worship. When Christians shall have
full liberty to change their opinions on minor topics, without
the fear of prosecution, or the apprehension of popular or ec¬
clesiastical odium as the primitive Christians had, it seems nat¬
ural to expect, that they will form their opinions more exclu¬
sively on the naked evidences of the truth itself. But at pre¬
sent, the avowal of a change of opinion on some points of sec¬
tarian diversity, is in some Protestant churches connected with
such formidable inconveniences, such as prosecution for heresy,
removal from pastoral charge, odium of the brethren etc., that
when a man, and especially a minister, has once connected
himself with any denomination, he finds it very difficult to en¬
gage in the investigation of these minor points of his own or
other denominations free from extraneous bias. It may be
said, that good men ought to rise above these influences, and be
unbiassed by such consequences ; but it is far easier to inculcate,
than practise this good advice.

e) Such a creed might also be regarded as a standing testi¬
mony of the church in behalf of the truth , and against error.
Let it not be said, that it would contain any thing which a por¬
tion of Christians regard as error ; for it is to embrace only those
doctrines which all the so-called orthodox agree in finding in
Scripture. Nor can it in justice be objected, that it would not
be explicit or ample enough ; it would be far more explicit and
five times as ample as the testimony which the church of Christ
during the first four centuries ever bore in this way. Nor do
wje suppose, that any satisfactory reason can be adduced to
show, that it is the duty of one part of the church to bear testi¬
mony against those opinions of the truth of which, another part
are “fully persuaded in their own minds ” and thus to “ judge
one another,” (Rom. 14: 1 — 8.) or that any good has ever re¬
sulted from such testimony.

Fourth Feature. There shoidd be free sacramental , ec¬
clesiastical and ministerial communion , among the confederated
churches.

The first of these elements, namely free sacramental com¬
munion, may be said already to exist among the churches. For
by it is not intended, that the members of any branch of the
Protestant church should forsake the sacramental ordinance of
the house jn which they statedly worship. This could be pro¬
ductive only of confusion, and eventually would create discord

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

instead of union. And, the writer supposes, that throughout
the whole of this plan there is nothing which ought to create
disturbance or unsettle the affairs of individual congregations of
Christians. But when members of one church are present at a
sacramental celebration in another, a public invitation to mem¬
bers of sister churches in good standing, ought always to be
given, as it happily is in most churches, and ought to be, as it
now generally is, accepted. On this topic', the practice of the
churches already coincides with our plan, and no alteration
would be desired, excepting that the few churches which have
not yet given this public invitation, should also adopt the prac¬
tice of their brethren.

By ecclesiastical communion, we mean that a certificate of
good standing in any one church should be a certain passport for
admission to regular membership in any other. This element
also may be said already to exist in the different branches of the
church. Yet its real import is not always understood, nor its
legitimate consequences followed out in practice. Christians
should regard themselves as members of the church universal as
well as of any particular denomination. Hence, when remov¬
ing to other places, although they naturally and properly con¬
nect themselves with their own denomination if there be a
church of the kind in the place ; yet if there be not, they ought
to connect themselves with any other Christian church which
comes nearest to their views of truth and duty, and in which
they could receive and communicate the greatest amount of good.
How melancholy is it that persons, professing to be Chris¬
tians, living in villages and neighborhoods where there is not and
cannot be a church of their denomination, remain ten or twenty
years, and often for life unconnected with the disciples of the
same Redeemer around them, on account of difference on minor
points of diversity. How still more distressing the thought that
ministers of that blessed Saviour who prayed, that all his disci¬
ples might “ be one,” should sometimes confirm the prejudices
of such individuals in the hope of some ultimate far distant gain
to their sect !

By ministerial communion, we would mean that a certificate
of good standing in the ministry of one church, ought to be a
passport for admission to the ministerial ranks of any other
church, if connected with a credible profession of attachment to
the standards of government, discipline and form of worship in
the other; and if the judicature applied to, believe the applicant

Dr. Schmucker' $ Appeal.

possessed of the qualifications, gifts and graces required by said
standards, and calculated to be useful in the midst of them.
This feature also exists in the practice of most of the churches.
It is not at all unusual for ministers of the Congregational, Presby¬
terian, and Low Dutch churches to transfer their relations. Be¬
tween the Lutheran and the Moravian churches in this country
the same is the case. Several of our most respected and use¬
ful ministers were trained in the church of the United Brethren
and transferred their relations to our larger and more destitute
Zion. Ministers coming with good credentials from the Evan¬
gelical church in Germany, apply indifferently either to the
Lutheran or German Reformed church in this country, and are
received by both. As the spirit of Christian union increases, we
suppose these cases of transfer will probably multiply ; and that
it will cease in any case to be odious for a minister, at any time
of life, to transfer his relations to another church either from
want of employment in his own, or because on more mature ex¬
amination, or observation of their practical effects, he believes
the forms of the latter more scriptural or better calculated to ad¬
vance the kingdom of Christ.

Ministerial communion also implies the mutual acknowledge¬
ment of each other’s official character by the clergy of the con¬
federated churches. On this point it may be thought some dif¬
ficulty would exist in the minds of some of our Episcopal breth¬
ren. This difficulty, if it exist at all, must be confined to the
high-church party, and does not embarrass those who embrace
episcopacy, not from the belief of its scriptural authority, but on
the ground of expediency ; and of this class far the largest por¬
tion of that church has always been. To this class have belong¬
ed archbishop Whitgift, Dr. Willet, bishops Bilson, Morton,
Jewell, Croft, Burnet, Dr. Whitaker, archbishops Usher, and
Tillotson, Drs. Stillingfleet, and Hawies, Sir Peter King, and
the venerable Dr. White, late bishop of the Episcopal church
in Pennsylvania, as well as, if we mistake not, the great mass
of Episcopal divines and laity in this country. In a pamphlet
of the last named respectable author, published many years ago,
principally to recommend a temporary departure from the line
of episcopal succession, on the ground that bishops could not
then be had, he uses this language : “ Now if even those who
hold episcopacy to be of divine right, conceive the obligation to
it not to be binding, when that idea would be destructive of
public worship ; much more must they think so, who indeed

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

venerate and prefer that form as the most ancient and eligible,
but without any idea of divine right in the case. This the au¬
thor believes to be the sentiment of the great body of Episco¬
palians in America, in which respect they have in their favor
unquestionably the sense of the church of England, and as he
believes the opinion of her most distinguished prelates for pie -
ety , virtue and abilities .” But we have no doubt, that even
our high-church brethren do in spirit (though not in form) ad¬
mit the ministerial character of other clergy ; and we take plea¬
sure in being able to cite the opinion of Dr. H. U. Onderdonk,
bishop of the Episcopal church in Pennsylvania in confirmation
of our belief. There will therefore be little if any difficulty
from this source. See his Tract on “ Episcopacy tested by
Scripture,” p. 6.

F ifth' F eature. In all matters not relating to the govern¬
ment , discipline and forms of worship of individual churches ,
but pertaining to the common cause of Christianity , let the
principle of cooperation regardless of sect, be adopted so far
as the nature of the case will admit and as fast as the views of
the parties will allow. The Scriptures present us with no ex¬
ample of regular organization for extensive benevolent opera¬
tions. The church is thus left to choose in view of the princi¬
ples of the New Testament, and the results of her own progres¬
sive experience. The forms of Christian associated agency in
the benevolent enterprises of our day, are usually distinguished
as voluntary and ecclesiastical. This designation, however,
seems not to be entirely accurate ; for the ecclesiastical are also
in one sense voluntary, and the voluntary are ecclesisastical, in¬
asmuch as they are conducted by members of the Christian
church. More properly at least in reference to the subject un¬
der discussion, they might be distinguished as catholic and
denominational. Now as the denominational are based on the
principle of sect, which we have found so detrimental to the
Redeemer’s kingdom ; it is evident that those who would labor
for this unity and aid in accomplishing the Saviour’s prayer,
should so far as the nature of the case admits, prefer those cath¬
olic institutions, in which such as profess to be brethren are
found acting out their profession. That these catholic institu¬
tions exert a most benign influence in mitigating the rigors of
sectarian asperity and in knitting together in love the hearts of
those engaged in them, can be doubted by no one acquainted
with the history of the American Bible, Tract, Education and

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

Missionary Societies. That they are at least as efficient as the
denominational organizations, and have enjoyed at least as signal
evidences of the divine favor, will also not be disputed. If the
parent or national societies be supposed to have too great a con¬
centration of power, let coordinate branches be multiplied and
be as nearly independent of the parent institution as experience
may prove to be desirable, and each branch mainly do the work
within its own bounds. Yet the branches also should be catho¬
lic in their structure, should embrace all such individuals and
congregational societies within their designated bounds, as are
willing to cooperate among the different denominations.

But it by no means follows, that denominational societies must
of necessity be wholly sectarian in their operations. They are
so only when their funds are applied exclusively to the propa¬
gation of Christianity connected with the sectarian peculiarities
of the church with which they are connected ; when beneficia¬
ries are selected exclusively from the members of that denomi¬
nation ; and are sustained only when having in view the minis¬
try in that church. The spirit of catholic union leads us to
rejoice at the progress of the Master’s kingdom in any of its ac¬
knowledged forms, and to be willing to aid an individual to labor
in any portion of the Lord’s vineyard, rather than that he should
not enter the vineyard at all. Let those, therefore, who prefer
denominational societies, and desire to promote the unity of
Christ’s body, adopt the catholic principles of action, and enter
into some rules of cooperation and non-interference with the
other societies, and although not so entirely favorable to Cathol¬
icism as the purely catholic institutions, they would be hailed
by the friends of union as fellow-laborers in the common cause
of apostolic Catholicism.

In addition to the superior tendency to union in the catholic
or voluntary associations, they enable individual Christians
and congregations in their primary capacity, themselves to ap¬
propriate their funds immediately to such purposes as they pre¬
fer, without the intervention of ecclesiastical bodies. This may
lead Christians generally to feel their responsibility more sensi¬
bly, to inquire into the merits of different Christian enterprises
more fully, and thus to become more deeply interested in them.

In order the more perfectly to secure to the catholic associa¬
tions their ecclesiastical and orthodox character, it might not be
amiss for the parent institutions and primary branches to incor¬
porate in their constitutions an acknowledgement of the Apos-

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

tolic Protestant Confession , requiring a subscription to it from
all their principal executive officers, their beneficiaries and their
missionaries both foreign and domestic. These societies are
even now amply secured on this point by their regulations,
which require, that every beneficiary shall be member of some
Christian church, and that every missionary sent either into the
domestic or foreign field, shall be in regular connection and good
standing in the ministry of some orthodox denomination. Still
as the proposed creed is a catholic one, there would be a con-
gruity in its distinctive acknowledgement by catholic societies,
and it would tend to give still greater prominence to the com¬
mon faith.

Sixth Feature. The Bible should as much as possible be
made the text-book in all religious and theological instruction.
It is incontrovertible that in consequence of the great abundance
even of good uninspired works, the book of God in its naked
form just as its author made it, receives less attention than it
merits. We would not, of course, object to elementary books
for the instruction of children and youth ; yet it seems desira¬
ble, that they contain only the common ground of Christian
doctrine. Many of the books, employed in training the rising-
generation, are tinctured by sectarian peculiarities, whilst others
are professedly sectarian, and cannot fail to leave impressions
unfriendly to the cause of union. Every denomination must
indeed have full liberty to use such works for purposes of in¬
struction without being upbraided : yet it cannot fail to be per¬
ceived, that the unity of Christ’s body will be best subserved
by occupying the attention of children mainly with the ground
and common truths of our holy religion, by preferring elementary
books of an unsectarian character, and by the early use of the
^ Bible as the chief book of study and instruction. It is moreo¬
ver due to that blessed volume, that it should not only be called
the best of books, but also treated as such ; and be made use of
on all suitable occasions, not so much with the view of estab¬
lishing, by detached quotations, positions already made out, as
for the analytic study of the book itself. For this cause Bible
classes are deserving of high commendation, even admitting that
disputed points are sometimes discussed. The scholar is still
employed in the direct study of the word of God, and will learn
to judge for himself. Those books of instruction, such as the
Bible questions of the American Sunday School Union, which

Dr. Schmucker’’ s Appeal.

require the scholar unavoidably and constantly to refer to the
Bible for answers, are peculiarly appropriate.

In theological seminaries also the Bible should as much as
possible be made the subject of direct study on all the different
branches of theology ; and on every topic the student should
be required to search the Scriptures for himself, and present
the results of his examination. This course is in a greater or
or less degree already pursued in many of our principal 'schools
of the prophets. Yet it is probable, that it might be carried to
greater extent. In Biblical History, in Doctrinal, Practical and
Polemical Theology this plan can be employed with the utmost
facility, and its undoubted tendency is to obliterate sectarian
prejudices and distinctions, and to promote alike Christian union
and Bible truth. The more we can fix the attention of the
student to the word of God, the better shall we be able to raise
up a generation of ministers disengaged from the shackles of
sectarianism, and firmly planted on the broad platform of the
Bible ; men possessing the most enlarged views of the Re¬
deemer’s kingdom, and ready to devise and execute millennial
schemes for its advancement.

The seventh and last Feature", of union is that mis¬
sionaries, going into foreign lands , ought to use and, profess
no other than this common creed, the Apostolic Protestant
Confession, and connect with it whatever form of church-gov¬
ernment and mode of worship they prefer.

For the sake of our bleeding Saviour, our sectarian divisions
ought not to be carried to heathen lands. The Protestant
churches amount to but sixty millions out of seven hundred
millions, the probable population of our entire globe, and ought
not to spread the Corinthian contagion of sectarianism over the
gentile world. In view of all the divisions and contentions,
which sectarianism has entailed on the heritage of God, how
much better would it be, that the disciples of the Lord, in¬
structed by the experience of three hundred years of discord in
the household of faith, should settle down on some better plan
for preserving the unity of the church, as her triumphs are ex¬
tending into heathen countries ! The signs of the times impe¬
riously call us to this duty ; and a more convenient season can¬
not be expected in the providence of God. Deeply impressed
with the conviction that something can, and therefore something
ought to be done, the writer, whose attention has for many
years been directed to this subject, felt constrained to address

Dr. Schmucker' s Appeal.

this fraternal appeal to the American churches. Whether that
Divine Saviour, who has promised to be with his disciples unto
the end of the world, will incline the hearts of his children to
heed this appeal, the future must develope. But whether or
not, the writer feels, that he will have discharged a solemn du¬
ty, and he cannot resist the conviction that some good will ac¬
crue to the kingdom of the blessed Saviour. It is certainly
supremely desirable that the unity of the church should be re¬
stored in Christian lands, and that the sacramental host who bear
the standard of the cross into the heathen world, should present
an undivided front. Better that the heathen should never hear
of Luther, and Calvin, and Arminius, and Wesley, and base
their religion purely on the Bible, than that the sectarian divis¬
ions connected with these names should be carried among them,
still to vex, and agitate and paralize the church.

Whilst the entire pagan world is before them no two sects
ought to send missionaries into the same district of country.
Thus the immediate collision of sects would be prevented for a
season. Yet if they take with them their extended sectarian
creeds, it will not be long before dissenters from it, will grow
up among their own disciples, and thus the old evil soon return.
But if a creed covering only the common, undisputed ground
of Christianity be taken, there will be no need of disciplining any
but such as ought to be excluded from all Christian churches,
and therefore could not form any Christian sect. And as the
Scriptures present us with no entire detailed system of church-
government, our predilections on that subject are produced
chiefly by the influence and example of parents and teachers,
and there is little, very little probability of secession from any of
the churches in heathen lands, on this ground.

In addition to these fundamental features of the projected
union, Christians should endeavor gradually to restore unity or
mutual acknowledgement in name , as well as in the thing.
Geographical names should be adopted for all catholic or vol¬
untary associations, which may be erected. In this respect the
American Education, Tract, Bible, Missionary and other societies
have set a noble example. Each denomination should speak
of itself not as the church, but as a branch of the church. How
delightful would it be, to hear Christians habitually employing
phraseology indicative of their unity, and to hear them speak of
The Lutheran Branch of the church,

The Episcopal Branch of the church,

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

The Presbyterian Branch of the church,

The Methodist Branch of the church, etc. etc.

Thus would we literally verify the declaration of the Lord’s
prophet, “ And the Lord will be king over all the earth ; in
that day there will be one Lord and his name one.” Zech. 14: 9.

As to one Supreme Representative Body , having even limit¬
ed jurisdiction over all the confederated bodies, for which some
may have been looking as a feature of this plan of union — there
was none such in the apostolic age, and we need none. The
tendency of such bodies is naturally to an increase of power —
they are the foster-mothers of papacy, and dangerous to true
liberty of conscience.

Should any circumstances in the Providence of God, here¬
after render it necessary, and the great body of the confederated
denominations unite in the call, a mere advisory council might
be convened, consisting of a small senatorial delegation, in equal
numbers from each denomination, without legislative or judicial
power, its advice to be confined to the general interests of the
Redeemer’s kingdom. Yet even such a council ought not to
meet statedly nor often, and forms no part of the proposed union.

CHAPTER V.

The Apostolic, Protestant Confession,

for which the reader is now prepared, is nothing more than a
selection of such articles or parts of articles, on the topics de¬
termined by the several confessions, as are believed by all the
so-called orthodox churches. Not a single word is altered or
added. The authority of this confession is based on the fact,
that every sentence, every idea of it, has been sanctioned by
one or other of the Protestant conventions that adopted the
creeds from which the articles are selected, and by the denomi¬
nations receiving those creeds. The whole creed has therefore
already received the ecclesiastical sanction of acknowledged
churches. Its sanction in its present form and for the propo¬
sed purpose , it can only receive by the successive action of such
ecclesiastical bodies, and churches and individuals as in the
Providence of God may receive it, and publish their assent to it,
not as renouncing any of their former opinions, but as regarding
this as the test for discipline and communion.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

The Apostolic, Protestant Confession.

Part I. The Apostles’ Creed.

“I believe in God the Father Almighty, the Maker of hea¬
ven and earth : And in Jesus Christ, his only Son our Lord ;
who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the virgin Ma¬
ry, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead and bu¬
ried. — The third day he rose from the dead, he ascended into
heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Al¬
mighty, from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the
dead.

“ I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic or universal
church ; the communion of saints ; the forgiveness of sins ; the
resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting.”

Part II. The United Protestant Confession.

• * -/ ' '.It . ,

Art. I. Of the Scriptures.

The Holy Scripture containeth all things necessary to sal¬
vation : so that whatsoever is not read therein, nor may be
proved thereby, is not to be required of any man, that it should
be believed as an article of the faith, or be thought requisite or
necessary to salvation.1 Under the name of the Holy Scrip¬
tures, or the word of God written, are now contained all the
books of the Old and New Testament, which are these :

Genesis,

Exodus,

Leviticus,

Numbers,

Deuteronomy,

Joshua,

Judges,

Ruth,

I. Samuel,

II. Samuel,

I. Kings,

II. Kings,

I. Chronicles,

II. Chronicles,

Ezra,

Nehemiah,

Obadiah,

Esther,

Jonah,

Job,

Micah,

Psalms,

Nahum,

Proverbs,

Habakkuk,

Ecclesiastes,

Zephaniah,

Song of Solomon,

Haggai,

Isaiah,

Zechariah,

Jeremiah,

Malachi,

Lamentations,

Matthew,

Ezekiel,

Mark,

Daniel,

Luke,

Hosea,

John,

Joel,

Acts of the Apostles,

Amos,

Epistle to the Romans,

1 Articles of the Episcopal church, Art.
of the Methodist church, Art. V.

VI. and of the Discipline

Dr. Schmuc'ke1', s Appeal.

I. Corinthians,

II. Thessalonians,

I. Peter,

II. Corinthians,

I. Timothy,

II. Peter,

Galatians,

II. Timothy,

I. John,

Ephesians,

Titus,

II. John,

Philippians,

Philemon,

III. John,

Colossians,

Hebrews,

Jude,

I. Thessalonians,

Epistle of James,

Revelation.

All which are given by inspiration of God to be the rule of
faith and life. The books commonly called Apocrypha, not
being of divine inspiration are no part ol the canon of the Scrip¬
ture.1

Art. II. Of God and the Trinity .

Our churches with one accord teach, that there is one God,
eternal, incorporeal, indivisible, infinite in power, wisdom and
goodness, the creator and preserver of all things visible and in¬
visible ; and yet, that there are three persons, who are of the
same essence and power, and are coeternal, the Father, the
Son, and the Holy Spirit.2

Art. III. Of the Son of God and the Atonement.

They likewise teach, that the Word, that is, the Son of God,
assumed human nature, so that the two natures human and di¬
vine, united in one person, constitute one Christ, who is true
God and man ; born of the virgin Mary ; and truly suffered,
was crucified, died, and was buried, that he might be a sacrifice
for the sins of men.3

Art. IV. Of Human 'Depravity.

God having made a covenant of works and of life thereupon
with our first parents ; they, seduced by the subtilty and temp¬
tation of Satan, did wilfully transgress and break the covenant
by eating the forbidden fruit.4 By this sin they fell from their

1 Ratio Disciplinae or Constitution of the Congregational Churches,
Art. I. § 2. 3. and Confession of the Presbyterian Church, Art. I. § 2.
3. The Calvinistic Baptists are supposed generally to agree in the
views of this Confession, though they have not formally adopted it :
and the Confession of the Dutch Reformed Church is also ot the same
general doctrinal import.

2 Lutheran and Moravian (United Brethren’s) Confession, Art. I.

3 Idem, x4rt. III. according to the translation contained in the wri¬

ter’s “ Popular Theology.” 4 Congregational, Art. VJ. 1.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

original righteousness and communion with God, and so became
dead in sin.1 II They being the root of all mankind, a corrupted
nature is conveyed to all their posterity descending from them
by ordinary generation.2 The condition of man after the fall
of Adam, is such,3 that his will is neither forced, nor by any ab¬
solute necessity of nature determined to do good or evil :4 but
it does not possess the power, without the influence of the Ho¬
ly Spirit, of being just before God.5

Art. V. Of Justification.

We are accounted righteous before God only for the merit of
our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ by faith ; and not for our
own works or deservings.6 This faith must bring forth good
fruits ; and it is our duty to perform those good works which
God has commanded, because he has enjoined them, and not in
the expectation of thereby meriting justification before him.7
Good works cannot put away our sins, and endure the severity
of God’s judgment.8

Art. VI. Of the Church.

The visible church, which is catholic or universal under the
Gospel (not confined to one nation), consists of all those through¬
out the world, that profess the true religion, and is the kingdom
of the Lord Jesus Christ. Unto this catholic, visible church,
Christ hath given the ministry, oracles and ordinances of God.9
For the true unity of the church, it is not necessary that the
same rites and ceremonies, instituted by men, should be every¬
where observed.10 The purest churches under heaven are
subject both to mixture and error ;n nevertheless, Christ always
hath had and ever shall have a visible kingdom in this world to
the end thereof, of such as believe in him and make profession

I Presbyterian, Art. VI. 2. 2 Congregational, Art. VI. 3.

3 Episcopal, Art. X. 4 Presbyt. and Congreg. IX. 1.

5 Lutheran and Moravian Conf. Art. XVIII.

6 Episcopal Conf. Art. XI. and Methodist, Art. IX.

7 Lutheran and Moravian Conf. Ait. VI.

8 Methodist Discip. Art. X. and Episcopal Conf. Art. XII.

9 Presbyterian Conf. Art. XXV. 2. 3.

10 Lutheran and Moravian, Art. VII.

II Presb. XXV. 3. and Cong. XXVI. 3.

Dr. Schmucker' s Appeal.

of his name. 1 There is no other head of the church but the
Lord Jesus Christ : nor can the pope of Rome in any sense be
the head thereof. 2

Art. VII. Of the Sacraments , Baptism and the Lord's

Supper.

The sacraments were instituted not only as marks of a Chris¬
tian profession among men ; but rather as signs and evidences
of the divine disposition towards us, tendered for the purpose ol
exciting and confirming the faith of those who use them.3
There be only two sacraments ordained by Christ our Lord in
the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the
Lord. 4 Baptism is ordained not only for the solemn admission
of the party baptized into the visible church ; but also to be
unto him a sign of the covenant of grace, of regeneration, of
remission of sins, and of his giving up unto God through Jesus
Christ, to walk in newness of life.5 The supper ol the Lord
is not only a sign of the love that Christians ought to have
among themselves ; but rather is a sacrament of our redemption
by Christ’s death.6

In this sacrament Christ is not offered up, nor any real sacri¬
fice made at all, for remission of sins of the quick or dead ; so
that the popish sacrifice of the mass, as they call it, is most in¬
jurious to Christ’s one only sacrifice. 7 That doctrine which
maintains a change of the bread and wine into Christ’s body and
blood (commonly called transubstantiation) by consecration of a
priest, or in any other way, is repugnant not to Scripture alone,
but even to common sense and reason.8 The denying of the
cup to the people, and worshipping the elements, or carrying
them about for adoration, are all contrary to the institution of
Christ. 9

1 Congregational Conf. Art. XXVI. 3.

2 Congr. XXVI. 4. and Presb. XXV. 6.

3 Lutheran and Moravian Conf. Art. XIII.

4 Presb. Art. XXVII. 4. and Congr. XXVIII. 4.

5 Presb. Art. XXVIII. 1.

6 Methodist Disc. Art. XVIII. and Episc. Art. XXVIII.

7 Presb. Art. XXIX. 2. and Cong. XXX. 2.

8 Presb. Conf. Art. XXIX. 6. and Cong. XXX. 6.

9 Presb. XXIX. 4. Cong. XXX. 4.

Dr. Schmucker’s Appeal.

Art. VIII. Of Purgatory , etc.

The Romish doctrine concerning purgatory, worshipping as
well of images as of relics, and also invocation of saints, is re¬
pugnant to the word of God. 1

Art. IX. Liberty of Conscience.

God alone is the Lord of conscience and hath left it free from
the doctrines and commandments of men, which are in any
wise contrary to his word, or beside it in matters of faith or
worship. So that to believe such doctrines or to obey such
commandments out of conscience, is to betray true liberty of
conscience ; and, the requiring of an implicit faith and an ab¬
solute and blind obedience is to destroy liberty of conscience
and reason also.2

Art. X. Of Civil Government.

God the supreme Lord and king of all the world, hath or¬
dained civil magistrates to be under him, over the people, for
his own glory and the public good ; and to this end hath armed
them with power, for the defence and encouragement of them
that do good, and for the punishment of evil-doers.3 The pow¬
er of the civil magistrate extendeth to all men, as well clergy
as laity in things temporal ; but hath no authority in things
purely spiritual.4 Christians ought to yield obedience to the
civil officers and laws of the land : unless they should command
something sinful ; in which case it is a duty to obey God rather
than man.5

Art. XI. Communion of Saints.

Saints are bound to maintain an holy fellowship and commun¬
ion in the worship of God, and in performing such other spirit¬
ual services as tend to their mutual edification : As also in re¬
lieving each other in outward things, according to their several
abilities and necessities ; which communion, as God ofFereth
opportunity, is to be extended to all those who in every place
call upon the name of the Lord Jesus.0

1 Methodist Disc. Art. XIV. and Episcopal, Art. XXII.

2 Presb. XX. 2. 3 Cong. XXIV. 1. and Presb. XXIII. L

4 Epise. XXXVII. 5 Lutheran and Moravian, Art. XVI.

6 Cong. XXVII. 2. and Presb. XXVI. 2.

Dr. Schmucker' s Appeal.

Art. XII. Of the Future Judgment and Retribution.

At the end of the world Christ will appear for judgment, he
will raise the dead, he will give to the pious eternal life and
endless joys ; but will condemn wicked men and devils to be
punished without end.1 As Christ would have us to be cer¬
tainly persuaded, that there shall be a day of judgment, to de¬
ter all men from sin ; so will he have that day unknown to
men, that they may shake off all carnal security and be always
watchful, because they know not at what hour the Lord will
come, and may be ever prepared to say, Come , Lord Jesus,
Come quickly. Amen.2

Mode of Operation.

It only remains that a few words be said as to the manner in
which this plan could with very little delay be adopted by all
who approve of its principles and are desirous of cooperating in
restoring unity to the body of Christ.

The call of a general convention of all the friends of the
cause would probably not be expedient nor extensively suc¬
cessful ; nor indeed is it necessary.

I. Let the friends of union, be they benevolent individuals
or associations, extensively circulate this appeal among the dif¬
ferent churches, ministers and laity.

II. Let the friends of the cause invite the different ecclesias¬
tical bodies to which they belong to investigate the plan, and
so soon as they approve of it adopt it each for itself and resolve
henceforth to act upon it.

III. If any orthodox denomination find in it a single article
or sentence or idea, which positively, (not by inference) teaches
what they regard as error, let them strike it out, and adopt the
residue. The writer is however not aware that such a clause
is found in it. Other denominations would then also omit it as
a disputed point, not belonging to the common ground of Pro¬
testantism, and the residue remain as the United Protestant
Confession , regularly adopted by the confederated denomina¬
tions.

IV. Let vacant churches, and Christians of different denomi¬
nations in destitute villages and neighborhoods be encouraged

1 Lutheran and Moravian Conf. Art. XVII.

2 Presbyterian, XXXIII. 3. Congregational, XXXII. 3.

Dr. Schmucker* s Appeal.

to unite in adopting the Apostolic Protestant Confession, and
plan of union, and join in calling a minister of any one of the
confederated churches.

V. Let each of the confederated denominations and mission¬
ary societies both voluntary and denominational resolve not to
send a minister into any village or neighborhood already ade¬
quately supplied by a minister from another branch of the union,
but advise their members to unite with their confederated breth¬
ren in supporting the minister already stationed among them,
or some other one of good standing in either of the confederated
denominations, in whose support they can agree.

VI. Whenever the confederated population of a district is
unable to support a minister, let application be made to the
proper officers of the missionary society of their choice, for such
aid as they may need.

V II. Let the education and missionary societies of the con¬
federated churches confer with each other, adopt rules of co¬
operation, and resolve with renewed ardor by the help of God
to supply every destitute place in our land with faithful minis¬
ters, and labor with re-doubled zeal in the definite enterprise of
sending the Gospel to every rational creature throughout “ the
field of the world.”

This plan would tend to produce unity of spirit first, whilst
it will prepare the way for greater unity in external forms ; if
the Lord designs to effect it. If its prominent features were
faithfully carried out, the Protestant church would present as
much external unity of organization, as that of the apostolic age,
and therefore in all probability as much as is desirable ; whilst,
happy consummation ! the members of the Saviour’s body would
again have the same care one for another ; and whether one
member suffer, all the members suffer with it, or one member
be honored, all the members rejoice with it ! and the intellect of
the Christian church would no longer be expended in internal
contentions, but all her energies be directed to the conversion of
the world.

In conclusion, we would commend this humble, well-meant ef¬
fort to the blessing of that divine Saviour, who has watched over
his church amidst all the vicissitudes of her history. If this plan is
accordant with his will, may he graciously accept and prosper
it ; and if not, may he defeat it, and at the day of final account,
regard with favor the upright intention from which it has ema¬
nated !

NOTE.

To prevent the misapprehension of some remarks, which might
otherwise naturally be regarded as allusions to more recent events,
it is proper to inform the reader, that the whole of the preceding Ap¬
peal was written more than a year ago, and therefore prior to the exci¬
sion of a portion of the Presbyterian church by the last General Assem¬
bly.

As a disciple of the common Saviour, the writer feels a sincere
desire for the prosperity of every protestant fundamentally orthodox
denomination, and for another “ blessed Reformation” in the entire
Romish church itself. As such, he feels it his privilege and duty to
address a few ideas to his Protestant brethren generally, on the re¬
lations which do or ought to subsist between the different portions
of Christ’s kingdom. And he would respectfully and affectionately
request them to test the sentiments advanced, not by their ecclesiastical
standards, which are the work of uninspired though good men, but by
the “ law and the testimony,” by the inspired rule of God’s holy word.
Let them solemnly inquire whether the Protestant churches organ¬
ized and operating on the principles, fully developed in this Appeal,
would not approximate much nearer to the apostolic church, than
they now do ; whether they could not act much more efficiently and
harmoniously in advancing the triumphs of the cross in the heathen
and the papal world ; and whether we might not even hope again to see
the days, when surrounding observers will exclaim : “ See how these
Christians love one another ?”

Date Due

mna;

- ■■ f*'

M AV

* -*##

•"* . ,

- S-M f -V"? -

9 f I r* *

- *m -

;''■ i •>■' .i'

i v

- Vliiii -

JjW^Mttvn’?. V

mt rm'

«WM.

♦

PRINTED

IN U. S. A.

Internet Archive Audio

Featured

Top

Images

Featured

Top

Software

Featured

Top

Texts

Featured

Top

Video

Featured

Top

Mobile Apps

Browser Extensions

Archive-It Subscription

Save Page Now

Full text of "Appeal to the American churches : with a plan for Catholic union"

See other formats